Thanks for going into more detail, I'll digest your reply and come back as I think our discussion of this could be fruitful for both parties. My background is in magick but my current practices are within Dzogchen models, so I've got a fairly broad range of reference points.

Something I'd like to point out, from experience, is the way in which blood sacrifice, even starting out with very few drops, requires more and more 'base substance' for it to be effective in a very short space of time. There are far more efficient and effective ways to bring about results; symbolic sacrifice, through sex magick in particular, can be considerably more powerful when done properly, and it harms no one.

Also, I agree that invocation and evocation, as well as most of the more commonly encountered concentrative states, are essentially trance-based. What's worth knowing is that there are what we could feasibly call the opposite of subjectively-focused trance states. Experiences of pure consciousness where one experiences non-dual, non-conceptual awareness, something which can be brought about by nothing more than continuous attention to bare sensate phenomena.

Anyway, I've written more than I intended so I'll post when I get a chance.

That has not been my experience, it is interesting you have drawn that conclusion.
I take it you are familiar with The Process and Sigils. Something you wrote also makes me think you are familiar with Book Four, is that the case?

I am interested in learning more about the system of magick you have worked with, if it does not defy an oath to discuss or share more about it. I ended up gravitating to what might be called Demeter worship, and have some plans to get to that in regards to the deity topic of the thread.

In my own experience Sex Magick is a trance state phenomena, it should be noted that what i am talking about is not trance state related and does not involve an altered state of consciousness in any requisite way. One can utilize such a state, but they are not required for this work and often get in the way. (though not for Mesa work, they are required for that specifically)

One might consider a dichotomy of rites, the first being those aimed to affect consciousness, in this regard their efficacy is related to their ability to do so, the second however is related to an appeal to something outside consciousness of the individual, in this regard efficacy is unrelated to effects upon consciousness.

One might be viewed as faith based, the other would then be viewed as effective regardless of faith.

I'm having trouble parsing this. Are you saying that Jung's model should show convergence as opposed to divergence? From what I understand, the inherited archetypal form is quite basic and general, but is fleshed out according to the epigenetic qualities of a culture. One would anticipate a convergence in shared basic symbols (e.g. cross, staff) and general concepts (e.g. trickster spirit, mother). At the same time divergence is expected in specific details of the folklore and artwork (e.g. names, places, aesthetics). Convergence AND divergence are characteristic of the Jungian model, only they manifest in different realms of psychic experience: one unconscious, the other conscious. This is exactly what happens and fits the model pretty well in my opinion. The truth of the matter is up for debate, but Jung's theory is certainly consistent.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your criticism. Please correct me if this is the case. Nevertheless, I find this all very fascinating and will be following this thread with great interest.

That is my point.
These aspects neither arise nor converge.
They diverge only, and do so much like like human allele flow and language does, actually matching regional distribution as indicated by data in regard to the former.

Essentially, isolated cultures or groups lacking these symbols fail to develop them, and likewise do not create pantheons or methods involving the deities I address or even analogous ones.

Likewise individuals who are unaware of these deities and the methods of involving them do not perceive, create or come up with the deities, the methods or the symbolic representations and associations found here.

An example is the old man with the small dog, the limp, the hat and the cane, this does not arise in any contemporary setting that I can find. I am open to evidence of it arising in a manner suggesting it might relate to an aspect of psyche or humanity in some inherent way. If you can demonstrate such symbols arising together in this manner in perception of those who are unfamiliar with the teachings, please do so and share it.

Yes, but archetypes are genetically inherited and evolve through epigenetic influence. Removed from the Eurasian swarm and its dynamics, isolated people are found living very primitive lives and developing their own mythos built from primitive archetypes (mother figure, nature, hunting, dancing). The commonality of cultures in your 6000 year period reflects the widespread interaction between Eurasian and African societies. The only problem is South America. Your "global culture" is an ideal bridge from the Old World to the New, and thus, a model that, in my opinion, vindicates the Jungian model as it allows for the genetic swarm to encompass South America.

Now, to go for a stretch, there's also Jung's claim that parts of the unconscious psyche are autonomous. This might validate the possibility of the deities actually existing. I'm not sure where I'm going with that yet though.



You mentioned "The Fool" and Legba earlier. According to Jung, "The Fool" is certainly a manifestation of the Trickster archetype. Legba would appear to be of the Spirit archetype, often associated with the figure of a wise old man. Legba is god of the crossroads along with Elegua who, interesting enough, is a trickster spirit.

The problem with giving contemporary examples is that I agree that isolated cultures won't develop these symbols. The culture in question should be the global one. If it wasn't global 6000 years ago, it surely is now. We are in a post-modern world though. Many of these archetypes are utilized specifically because people identify them as such.

For instance, in the Elder Scrolls series of video games, there is a daedric prince (like a pagan deity) called Sheogorath, the "Madgod." He appears to mortals in the form of an old man with a cane or walking stick. He is a cunning trickster. However, he is a god of split identity for every 1000 years he turns into Jyggalag, the deadric prince of logical order and determinism. Jyggalag destroys his alter ego's realm, the Shivering Isles, in an event called the Greymarch. Sheogorath then rebuilds his realm and awaits the inevitable return of Jyggalag. Sheogorath and Jyggalag could be said to represent a crossroads similar to that of Legba and Elegua. I think it's likely that the writers of the game contrived of these details in full knowledge of its references to real world religions, symbols, folklore, and ultimately archetypes.

This is the dilemma of post-modern culture. There are feedback loops of intention everywhere. It's difficult to find examples that aren't tainted by awareness.

I think the problem with such a statement is that the one experiencing the perception of such symbols never actually has to concretize them into art or mythology. Perhaps the culture on the whole wouldn't have the ability to replicate the symbols (or understand them) anyway. For example, let's say 1000 years ago, an Amazonian shaman had drunk ayahuasca and experienced glorious Egyptian visions, perceiving the most pertinent of their religious symbols. Obviously they would be completely otherwise unaware of the culture and said symbols because they don't share our lofty contemporary perspective in the West of photographs, videos, textbooks, archaeology records and other Egyptological claims of the culture. Perhaps scant parts of the vision may end up completely transfigured into their already existing Shipibo visual-language, but it needn't be obvious in any shape or form that they experienced such a vision at all.

To take your specific example of the old man with the small dog, the limp, the hat and the cane, it could be theoretically possible that such symbols appear to contemporary budding psychonauts in a DMT vision for example; however, it might seem like such a silly, bizarre aspect of the vision, that it is completely written off. They write no reports of it; they create no artwork of it; their perceptions don't become shared and even if they do, it may likely not end up surviving 1000 years for future archaeologists to digest and say "well those psychonauts of that era certainly weren't aware of such symbols because they never appear in the record or in the culture and significant. The main point is that we can't presuppose the perceptions of other cultures because limited understanding and limited artistic abilities and the limitations of language all play into this big hodgepodge.

I will point again to the Ganesha example in which we have numerous members on this site who have perceived Ganesha and whom were completely unaware of her and/or her teachings, and yet they experienced her in a contextually significant way (as the Initiator or Remover of Obstacles). Now, even though they may have taken the time to write some small bit about her and even if she has had a profound impact on their lives, it doesn't necessarily have to be translated to the culture in which they experienced her. There needn't be new elephant cults or a Western veneration of the elephant as sacred or anything obvious in which a future culture can look back and know that it wasn't just the Hindus who perceived Ganesha directly, but a whole slew of DMT users whom were not familiar with Ganesha either.

All excellent theory, supposition and speculation, now we need evidence.
Jungian theory was made for example, during a time when genetic evidence was entirely lacking and the supposition for origins of culture was regional, this demanded an explanation of how symbolism could be similar in two cultures.

Theory is not useful until evidence indicates it.


So what is theoretically possible is not a practical approach, we must work from what is indicated to have meaningful conclusions.

This is getting boring

Txs, Albert, I had no idea that the figure on the knife and Viracocha is one and the same deity. But now it makes total sense!
Goes to show my ignorance on this topic..
no further comments

I find the Ganesha topic interesting, however consider that to be meaningful as evidence for example of an archetypal genetic or subconscious aspect, we must observe the vision in a large number of people who literally have no knowledge of what an elephant or a mastodon or mammoth look like.

Perhaps people experience the ghosts of mammoths or pother such species?
Perhaps Ganesh himself visits some people selectively?

Is there any evidence supporting the idea that these images are tied to genetic memory or a collective psyche? I have yet to see such indications.