• 
2010-10-30 08:35:16
Wow, there's a lot to digest there, I clearly made an impression and found a topic that you seem passionate about! 
Perhaps it would be better if I structured my reply based on specific questions or points raised in your replies - I'll try that. Forgive me if I paraphrase, and correct me if I misinterpret.
To be completely honest, I rarely make use of sigils any more. It is one of the first things most Chaotes learn about and attempt, and while it has its pragmatic benefits, particularly in disillusioning practitioners, I find that once the initial concept is understood, there are much more effective methods for achieving the same results. Perhaps a personal definition is in order..
I would consider sigilcraft to be very closely related to prayer. Sure, the method is different, and there is one striking difference that I will expand on shortly, but the idea behind the concept is the same. One first must designate an intent, or an aim for the prayer/sigil. Using a convention detailed by the paradigm, this intent is projected outwards such that forces outside of the control of the practitioner can put in place the circumstances that (hopefully) eventuate in a realisation of the chosen intent. Correct me if I have a misinformed or warped view of prayer, for you would be far more educated in its correct methodology. The difference I mentioned earlier between sigilcraft and prayer is that prayer does not require any disassociation with the intent (if one prays for rain, the effect will not be diminished by constantly thinking about the prayer once it has been completed), while sigilcraft, in its method, attempts to separate the intent from the ritual (of prayer or of creating/charging a sigil). This is due to a belief that what is often termed 'lust for results' can cause not only the ritual to fail, but provides it a chance to backfire or be negatively misinterpreted. As far as my personal application of sigilcraft goes, I find that it can provide a substantial relief in those moments where I cannot seem to get a particular thought/concept/idea out of my head. By designing a sigil and disassociating with the thought, I find that not only is it easier to distance myself from it, but it is often more effective in bringing about a desirable outcome than repetitive reverie.
Perhaps not the most succinct nor straightforward definition I've ever come up with, so if it raised a number of questions (as I'm sure it did) please let me know and I'll attempt to elaborate further. And now onto the next point!
Just a quick disclaimer - at no point will I ever attempt to sway you from your faith. My aim is only ever to encourage introspective thinking and clear up misconceptions about alternate paradigms. If you ever find anything I say to be either offensive to your faith or implicitly coercive, please feel free to raise a fuss, for it was surely unintentional. I think you are genuinely open-minded and this is the first step to not only understanding other religions, but better applying the practices of a chosen religion to better one's situation and lifestyle. Much of what I say about chaos and other paradigms I experiment within is universally applicable - or at least the underlying concepts are. Learning about the differences between one's faith and the faith of others is often the best way to understand why exactly we believe what we do, and what pragmatic value can be attained by holding such beliefs. So bravo, my friend, you do your religion proud.
Also, side note: not sure if you made the connection, but vacuity == gnosis.
While I'm inclined to agree with the definition of gnosis as a 'knack', my personal view is that it is a means to an end. To elaborate further, the 'gnostic state' can be used to great effect but provides no intrinsic benefit on its own (besides perhaps an improved awareness of the effect of altered states, but that's a whole new topic =P).
While this definition is technically correct, it by no means provides a full account. Allow me to elaborate:
Dogma is not at all unique to religion. Dogma is the type of belief or teaching that is expected to be accepted without investigation or even understanding, so it is natural that it is closely tied to religion. Yet I would also consider sigilcraft a type of dogma, at least until the purpose and method is completely understood, as the method is expected to be followed without detailed investigation into the purpose, or, more to the point, WHY exactly it works. Forgive my next comment, as it may come across as offensive, but the most often used example of dogma is religious texts, ie. the Bible. My personal view is that the Bible carries a great degree of truth, but that the truth is often written in parable form (not intended to be taken literally, but a moral can be uncovered if a sufficient understanding of the impetus behind the parable is discovered). I know that there are people who take the Bible entirely literally, and this is a perfect example of dogma. As you yourself have mentioned further in your reply, cults in general are another example of dogma, as the system behind them relies on ignorant acceptance of a shared core ideal, generally in opposition to (or at least not in alignment with) the related ideal within modern society.
In fact, a definition that seems to fit closer with the concept of the occult is as follows:
Occult: An area of knowledge that exists outside the twin pillars of science and religion.
Which lends itself rather nicely to the commonly accepted definition you have quoted, as most people these days tend to align themselves with either science or religion (or both!) and any thought outside of these meta-paradigms is, as you've accurately described from a Christian point of view, considered either ignorant or heretical.
Woah. I just scrolled up and realised I've been rambling for at least a thousand words. Perhaps I'll leave you to digest what I've come up with so far, instead of rambling on for what could very well be another thousand words. =P
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to both educate and learn from such an open-minded and passionate individual, and look forward to many extended discourses on various subjects.
<3
Lazy
0
Perhaps it would be better if I structured my reply based on specific questions or points raised in your replies - I'll try that. Forgive me if I paraphrase, and correct me if I misinterpret.
Quote:but whats this sigil stuff? ... sure theres different kinds of sigils, theres a different king of everything, i wanna know what your kind is.
To be completely honest, I rarely make use of sigils any more. It is one of the first things most Chaotes learn about and attempt, and while it has its pragmatic benefits, particularly in disillusioning practitioners, I find that once the initial concept is understood, there are much more effective methods for achieving the same results. Perhaps a personal definition is in order..
I would consider sigilcraft to be very closely related to prayer. Sure, the method is different, and there is one striking difference that I will expand on shortly, but the idea behind the concept is the same. One first must designate an intent, or an aim for the prayer/sigil. Using a convention detailed by the paradigm, this intent is projected outwards such that forces outside of the control of the practitioner can put in place the circumstances that (hopefully) eventuate in a realisation of the chosen intent. Correct me if I have a misinformed or warped view of prayer, for you would be far more educated in its correct methodology. The difference I mentioned earlier between sigilcraft and prayer is that prayer does not require any disassociation with the intent (if one prays for rain, the effect will not be diminished by constantly thinking about the prayer once it has been completed), while sigilcraft, in its method, attempts to separate the intent from the ritual (of prayer or of creating/charging a sigil). This is due to a belief that what is often termed 'lust for results' can cause not only the ritual to fail, but provides it a chance to backfire or be negatively misinterpreted. As far as my personal application of sigilcraft goes, I find that it can provide a substantial relief in those moments where I cannot seem to get a particular thought/concept/idea out of my head. By designing a sigil and disassociating with the thought, I find that not only is it easier to distance myself from it, but it is often more effective in bringing about a desirable outcome than repetitive reverie.
Perhaps not the most succinct nor straightforward definition I've ever come up with, so if it raised a number of questions (as I'm sure it did) please let me know and I'll attempt to elaborate further. And now onto the next point!
Quote:It is said in the bible not to go too far into detail in other beliefs without being careful. and i am trying very hard to understand.
Just a quick disclaimer - at no point will I ever attempt to sway you from your faith. My aim is only ever to encourage introspective thinking and clear up misconceptions about alternate paradigms. If you ever find anything I say to be either offensive to your faith or implicitly coercive, please feel free to raise a fuss, for it was surely unintentional. I think you are genuinely open-minded and this is the first step to not only understanding other religions, but better applying the practices of a chosen religion to better one's situation and lifestyle. Much of what I say about chaos and other paradigms I experiment within is universally applicable - or at least the underlying concepts are. Learning about the differences between one's faith and the faith of others is often the best way to understand why exactly we believe what we do, and what pragmatic value can be attained by holding such beliefs. So bravo, my friend, you do your religion proud.
Also, side note: not sure if you made the connection, but vacuity == gnosis.
While I'm inclined to agree with the definition of gnosis as a 'knack', my personal view is that it is a means to an end. To elaborate further, the 'gnostic state' can be used to great effect but provides no intrinsic benefit on its own (besides perhaps an improved awareness of the effect of altered states, but that's a whole new topic =P).
Quote:new word, help me with it.
Dogma - the established belief or doctrine held by a religion.
you know anything else of this word i should know?
While this definition is technically correct, it by no means provides a full account. Allow me to elaborate:
Dogma is not at all unique to religion. Dogma is the type of belief or teaching that is expected to be accepted without investigation or even understanding, so it is natural that it is closely tied to religion. Yet I would also consider sigilcraft a type of dogma, at least until the purpose and method is completely understood, as the method is expected to be followed without detailed investigation into the purpose, or, more to the point, WHY exactly it works. Forgive my next comment, as it may come across as offensive, but the most often used example of dogma is religious texts, ie. the Bible. My personal view is that the Bible carries a great degree of truth, but that the truth is often written in parable form (not intended to be taken literally, but a moral can be uncovered if a sufficient understanding of the impetus behind the parable is discovered). I know that there are people who take the Bible entirely literally, and this is a perfect example of dogma. As you yourself have mentioned further in your reply, cults in general are another example of dogma, as the system behind them relies on ignorant acceptance of a shared core ideal, generally in opposition to (or at least not in alignment with) the related ideal within modern society.
Quote:btw, occults are not good in Christians eyes, why do they need to be more hidden if it would be accepted...
In fact, a definition that seems to fit closer with the concept of the occult is as follows:
Occult: An area of knowledge that exists outside the twin pillars of science and religion.
Which lends itself rather nicely to the commonly accepted definition you have quoted, as most people these days tend to align themselves with either science or religion (or both!) and any thought outside of these meta-paradigms is, as you've accurately described from a Christian point of view, considered either ignorant or heretical.
Woah. I just scrolled up and realised I've been rambling for at least a thousand words. Perhaps I'll leave you to digest what I've come up with so far, instead of rambling on for what could very well be another thousand words. =P
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to both educate and learn from such an open-minded and passionate individual, and look forward to many extended discourses on various subjects.
<3
Lazy