Egregores and Servitors - Your Thoughts?

[BlackLili]

Perhaps I should have named this thread "Servitors and Egregores" but I suppose its not much worth debating.

For those here who have created anything like these before, at what point do you believe a Servitor becomes an Egregore? Is it a natural evolution, something that just happens after you work with any one servitor often enough, and have put enough energy/charged it "enough"? Or is this something that you go out of your way to create, and if so - what's your direct path?

Then again, what are the dangers of Servitors -vs- Egregores?

Servitors typically aren't sentient but can accomplish tasks - even complex ones requiring deductive reasoning.

Egregores are supposed to have sentience and though they are supposed to be guided by their creator(s) instructions, I am led to believe that they have a free will?

I've created a number of servitors but never had the "faith" to create an egregore. Recently, it was pointed out to me that they mostly take a group's synergy to really be "born" and their shared concentration to maintain it thereafter - but if its a sentient being, why would it require the faith of another to exist?

Anybody else with ideas on this or am I (as usual) working on the fringes of the Weird?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I shall post my personal experiences later...errand day...

But , for now...

http://www.tulpa.com/explain/alexandra.html

It ended up with her needing the assistance of a number of monks ,
to dispel , and dissolve this Tulpa...

There are always dangers , in any tradition...especially for a beginner...

"A little bit of knowledge is dangerous"...:bigredgri

[kaosxmage]

Perhaps I should have named this thread "Servitors and Egregores" but I suppose its not much worth debating.

For those here who have created anything like these before, at what point do you believe a Servitor becomes an Egregore? Is it a natural evolution, something that just happens after you work with any one servitor often enough, and have put enough energy/charged it "enough"? Or is this something that you go out of your way to create, and if so - what's your direct path?

Then again, what are the dangers of Servitors -vs- Egregores?

Servitors typically aren't sentient but can accomplish tasks - even complex ones requiring deductive reasoning.

Egregores are supposed to have sentience and though they are supposed to be guided by their creator(s) instructions, I am led to believe that they have a free will?

I've created a number of servitors but never had the "faith" to create an egregore. Recently, it was pointed out to me that they mostly take a group's synergy to really be "born" and their shared concentration to maintain it thereafter - but if its a sentient being, why would it require the faith of another to exist?

Anybody else with ideas on this or am I (as usual) working on the fringes of the Weird?

Servitors are best created with a single purpose in mind. The only active servitor I still have running is one which I named Pugz and embodied in a gargoyle statue. The whole purpose for Pugz to exist is to find simple things such as keys, change, basically anything you misplace.

This little beastie has been very reliable over the years, and the only payment you must make afterwards is eating a cookie on his behalf. Fair trade! What's interesting is that my friends started calling on Pugz when they misplaced their keys with great success. As time went by they started calling on Pugz for a clear path in traffic. The logic here is finding something missing to their perception. That has brought mixed results, but I'll use this as a possible Egregore creation example.

If enough people fervently used Pugz on missions of his purpose, and they started expanding on the boundaries bit by bit, he would eventually become an Egregore. The transition would be noticed when Pugz started exerting influence over the users rather than the other way around. It simply comes down to the amount of power or energy focused into the Servitor for the leap to be made. That would be the only real "danger" of an Egregore vs. a Servitor other than perhaps a group mind phenomenon.

Egregores are everywhere, and you're already part of many. Join the legions of sports fans, nations, corporations, and sewing circles and you're part of an egregore with varying degrees of influence. Do remember that an Egregore is no longer explicitly controlled by a group.

Read this story (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fotamec2.html) about a servitor gone mad. It's a fun read at the bare minimum. You should have a better understanding then. In fact, here (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/sseg.php) is a wonderful resource to get you moving in the right direction.

Good luck and happy creating!

--Kaos :jamsessio

[Deerwoman]

Sounds a lot like Chaos magic to me, in traditional witchcraft the only thing similar is the fetch - it is a part of yourself that you send forth on a task or journeying. I might contact a familiar spirit for similar tasks, but I would not create my own in my craft.

[BlackLili]

If enough people fervently used Pugz on missions of his purpose, and they started expanding on the boundaries bit by bit, he would eventually become an Egregore. The transition would be noticed when Pugz started exerting influence over the users rather than the other way around. It simply comes down to the amount of power or energy focused into the Servitor for the leap to be made. That would be the only real "danger" of an Egregore vs. a Servitor other than perhaps a group mind phenomenon.

Egregores are everywhere, and you're already part of many. Join the legions of sports fans, nations, corporations, and sewing circles and you're part of an egregore with varying degrees of influence. Do remember that an Egregore is no longer explicitly controlled by a group.

Read this story (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fotamec2.html) about a servitor gone mad. It's a fun read at the bare minimum. You should have a better understanding then. In fact, here (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/sseg.php) is a wonderful resource to get you moving in the right direction.

Good luck and happy creating!

--Kaos :jamsessio

Kaos! Good man! I was hoping you might appear in here. Actually, I was starting off the new year reading through some old files on the Chaos matrix anyway, and it was the "WTF is an Egregore? (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fen-egre.html)" article that got me wondering about all of this.

It was suggested in the article that the progression would go Servitor >>> Egregore >>> Godform, but then of course the typical "YMMV" disclaimer was slapped on it and got me thinking.

I love the concept of Pugz too, btw.

I made a servitor many moons ago named Aire and was solely created for protection. I've made just a few others in the meantime with varying degrees of success.

I'm pondering creating one now to leave behind me in the apt. I'm moving out of, and wondering if (a) there's time enough to create an egregore to leave and (b) if a servitor wouldn't just be safer in the long run and make more sense. There are dogs and occasionally children next door, and I don't know who will be moving in after us, but I don't want something to inadvertently go wrong, you know?

[BlackLili]

Sounds a lot like Chaos magic to me, in traditional witchcraft the only thing similar is the fetch - it is a part of yourself that you send forth on a task or journeying. I might contact a familiar spirit for similar tasks, but I would not create my own in my craft.
LoL, you are correct in that I have found servitors mostly in Chaotic magic(k).

My path is just American Witchcraft, which is a bit of an amalgam of tribal concepts that were already here and have emigrated here, along with popular spirituality and a dash of ceremonial and chaos magic(k). Fun stuff.

[kaosxmage]

Kaos! Good man! I was hoping you might appear in here. Actually, I was starting off the new year reading through some old files on the Chaos matrix anyway, and it was the "WTF is an Egregore? (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fen-egre.html)" article that got me wondering about all of this.

It was suggested in the article that the progression would go Servitor >>> Egregore >>> Godform, but then of course the typical "YMMV" disclaimer was slapped on it and got me thinking.

I love the concept of Pugz too, btw.

I made a servitor many moons ago named Aire and was solely created for protection. I've made just a few others in the meantime with varying degrees of success.

I'm pondering creating one now to leave behind me in the apt. I'm moving out of, and wondering if (a) there's time enough to create an egregore to leave and (b) if a servitor wouldn't just be safer in the long run and make more sense. There are dogs and occasionally children next door, and I don't know who will be moving in after us, but I don't want something to inadvertently go wrong, you know?

I have found the best method of Servitor success is getting down to the real purpose. In essence, when you create a Servitor you need to dig one level deeper.

My example would be protection. That's fair and noble. But, protection from what? For who? How long? Be specific in your creation and you will reap two benefits: no accidents, and better results. Servitors are best with a very specific plan of action. That in a way makes them unique, as vague intentions sometimes produce the best results. Get them created and charge them after. Share the sigil with friends or conspirators. That's only more juice!

An Egregore is - in my opinion - ill suited to your purpose. An Egregore left behind in the home isn't going to follow the manual. It's going to write the manual again and again. We'll use protection as an example again. Now you would have a Teenage version of Thor chilling in your living room. All the drive, anxiety, and know it all attitude of a teen, with the power of thunder, lightning, and giant slaying.

Hope that helps! :thumbsup:

--Kaos

[BlackLili]

An Egregore is - in my opinion - ill suited to your purpose. An Egregore left behind in the home isn't going to follow the manual. It's going to write the manual again and again. We'll use protection as an example again. Now you would have a Teenage version of Thor chilling in your living room. All the drive, anxiety, and know it all attitude of a teen, with the power of thunder, lightning, and giant slaying.

Hope that helps! :thumbsup:

--Kaos

Point taken - I had begun thinking along those lines myself but was more looking for someone who had some experience to interface with.

Thankee moochly! :fpraise:

[Jenett]

For those here who have created anything like these before, at what point do you believe a Servitor becomes an Egregore? Is it a natural evolution, something that just happens after you work with any one servitor often enough, and have put enough energy/charged it "enough"? Or is this something that you go out of your way to create, and if so - what's your direct path?

I tend to see a servitor as a more limited creation - and an egregore as one that is continuing to grow and change over time (and generally as one that has the input of multiple people over a period of time.)

My own experience with an egregore suggests:
- Leaving one to grow without regular check-ins can lead to any number of complex problems.

- It's important to set basic parameters initially: "Here's the stuff you should be doing." "Here's the stuff we may ask you to do as well." "Here's the people who can ask you to do these things". "You should not do these things if X and Y would occur."

- Having some method for dispelling the egregore is not impossible (and is quite possibly a good idea), but it's not a trivial process, especially if you have other individuals involved in the creation or function who aren't present for that work.)

- That once it's created, it doesn't need the group energy to form - but it does need the group energy to 'keep it busy', as it were - an unoccupied egregore is problematic.

[RainInanna]

I haven't used one myself but I do know of one little egregore that became a problem for my best friends. Perhaps that's why I never tried making either a servitor or egregore.

Can you tell me your favourite source for learning more about servitors and egregores? I've only read about them in a few basic ceremonial magic texts and I hadn't realized they were fundamentally different. Is that from teaching you got in person and not in a book?

[Meadhbh]

I don't know it never seemed right to create on. But thats my own take on things no offense any one. As it has been mentioned before the only thing like that I'm totally familar with is the use of a fetch. Which while along the same lines of a egregore or a servitor its not really. The main difference being a fetch can be inherit a fetch and it works with you though out your life but it also serves to warn you of your death. So it has a will of its own as its own life apart from who ever it has attached its self to. In any case its always polite to request it do something for you, not force it to.

[BlackLili]

I tend to see a servitor as a more limited creation - and an egregore as one that is continuing to grow and change over time (and generally as one that has the input of multiple people over a period of time.)

My own experience with an egregore suggests:
- Leaving one to grow without regular check-ins can lead to any number of complex problems.

- It's important to set basic parameters initially: "Here's the stuff you should be doing." "Here's the stuff we may ask you to do as well." "Here's the people who can ask you to do these things". "You should not do these things if X and Y would occur."

- Having some method for dispelling the egregore is not impossible (and is quite possibly a good idea), but it's not a trivial process, especially if you have other individuals involved in the creation or function who aren't present for that work.)

- That once it's created, it doesn't need the group energy to form - but it does need the group energy to 'keep it busy', as it were - an unoccupied egregore is problematic.

Fantastic points, all of them! Nicely laid out and explained! :thumbsup:

[cydira]

On the whole, this sounds almost like an energy/thought-form based version of an alchemist's homunculus or a golem. Either way, it sounds like a rather curious and risky proposition to create/generate one of these things and use/work with it. Perhaps it's just my tendency to regard spiritual beings and spiritual constructs with caution coming into play here, but it strikes me as a situation with far too much risk of going awry. *shrugs*

Interesting thread, either way. :)

[BlackLili]

I haven't used one myself but I do know of one little egregore that became a problem for my best friends. Perhaps that's why I never tried making either a servitor or egregore.

Can you tell me your favourite source for learning more about servitors and egregores? I've only read about them in a few basic ceremonial magic texts and I hadn't realized they were fundamentally different. Is that from teaching you got in person and not in a book?

I started learning about servitors when I was in high school. It began with a concept called "Elementaries" in one of Trish Telesco's books.

From there, I became involved in a website called "Cantrap" (http://www.cantrap.net,) where I learned more about servitors, and ceremonial and chaos magic(k) in general. I started making servitors from then on, but I remember references to egregores in several Chaote texts and some Crowely/OTO stuff.

The best writing that makes the most sense to me I've found is located at the Chaos Matrix, like Kaos pointed out (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos_all.php). It obviously comes from a chaotic perspective, but a lot of it reminds me of very informal descriptions of traditional ceremonial magic(k), too.

I grew up around mostly ceremonial magicians and Chaotes, and there were heavy pockets of Discordians, Subgenii, Tacos, etc in my neighborhood where I hung out, so much of my basis in "higher" magic(k) is very very informal and chaotic. (My first job in a bookstore involved meeting one of the founders of the Church of Subgenii when I was 17.) So a lot of what I could consider "natural" to me is probably Chaotically-inclined.

[Sage Rainsong]

I have done it a little bit in the past. My first one was a dragon that I made for protection. I used a Asian style wooden dragon that I got in Chinatown as a "house" and a focal point. I then stoped for a while. Now I use them all of the time because a Chaos magician friend of mine makes skulls with approiate colors and symbols with blueprints for the servitor. Yes I know they are not my own but the feed off of the energy that I give them and they work very well for me. See my sig if you want to know more (yes that would be a shameless plug).

[BlackLili]

I don't know it never seemed right to create on. But thats my own take on things no offense any one.


Either way, it sounds like a rather curious and risky proposition to create/generate one of these things and use/work with it. Perhaps it's just my tendency to regard spiritual beings and spiritual constructs with caution coming into play here, but it strikes me as a situation with far too much risk of going awry.

Out of my own curiosity (no offense taken), what prompts this sense of caution? I'm wondering if your definition of a servitor is different in that you see it as having more power than I would consider, or if its an objection to the process as a whole?

[Meadhbh]

Well in my cause its more of being polite than caution really. I don't like being forced into things and I try and return the same thing. I know it can be said because a egregore is created that there is nothing wrong with making sure it does what ever task it was created for. And I can see the logic in that, but I would just prefer to not get into the situation in the first place.

[cydira]

Out of my own curiosity (no offense taken), what prompts this sense of caution? I'm wondering if your definition of a servitor is different in that you see it as having more power than I would consider, or if its an objection to the process as a whole?

Well, from what I've seen in my own experience and the experiences of others, spiritual beings and spiritual constructs tend to have a rather... alien way of thinking. We may claim that the constructs think in a fashion far closer to our own, but we can't really make that case because they're not living within a body like we are. As such, considerations for physical pain, hunger, etc. are not factors within their thought process unless upon an abstract level, and then their method of prioritizing is going to be drastically different from our own.

This, of course, assumes some level of consciousness in the case of spiritual constructs. Given how many, many people who make spiritual constructs specify some form of consciousness (usually including implicit self-awareness in the process), it could be argued that it's safe to assume that 90% of the spiritual constructs are aware in some fashion. That alien perspective makes their interpretation of our requests and directions either quite literal or ... unpredictable (especially if we use subjective language in making said statements).

Personally, I wouldn't want to responsibility from a spiritual construct misinterpreting my direction and causing harm. It's why the only spiritual constructs that I will make are non-sentient objects and those are temporary ones for a single purpose most of the time. More permanent ones are generated upon a repetitive use basis and exist based upon a 'blueprint' that I retain, so that the same object is created each time but it is not a perpetual construct.

It simply is too risky to leave such things 'lying about' in the aether of that spiritual landscape that a large number of us work in. I know there are others who would use the connection between the spiritual construct and myself to attempt to manipulate or harm me. I also know that there are others who would use it to engage in actions that I personally would not approve of and I would bear some responsibility for because I created the construct.

All of the wards and protections that one can place around a construct, it is still possible for the sentient ones to slip their 'leash' and for another to unravel those protections with sufficient time and effort. On the whole, I find the prospect quite risky and don't generally use this method.

[Gypsyballad]

Well, from what I've seen in my own experience and the experiences of others, spiritual beings and spiritual constructs tend to have a rather... alien way of thinking. We may claim that the constructs think in a fashion far closer to our own, but we can't really make that case because they're not living within a body like we are. As such, considerations for physical pain, hunger, etc. are not factors within their thought process unless upon an abstract level, and then their method of prioritizing is going to be drastically different from our own.

This, of course, assumes some level of consciousness in the case of spiritual constructs. Given how many, many people who make spiritual constructs specify some form of consciousness (usually including implicit self-awareness in the process), it could be argued that it's safe to assume that 90% of the spiritual constructs are aware in some fashion. That alien perspective makes their interpretation of our requests and directions either quite literal or ... unpredictable (especially if we use subjective language in making said statements).

Personally, I wouldn't want to responsibility from a spiritual construct misinterpreting my direction and causing harm. It's why the only spiritual constructs that I will make are non-sentient objects and those are temporary ones for a single purpose most of the time. More permanent ones are generated upon a repetitive use basis and exist based upon a 'blueprint' that I retain, so that the same object is created each time but it is not a perpetual construct.

It simply is too risky to leave such things 'lying about' in the aether of that spiritual landscape that a large number of us work in. I know there are others who would use the connection between the spiritual construct and myself to attempt to manipulate or harm me. I also know that there are others who would use it to engage in actions that I personally would not approve of and I would bear some responsibility for because I created the construct.

All of the wards and protections that one can place around a construct, it is still possible for the sentient ones to slip their 'leash' and for another to unravel those protections with sufficient time and effort. On the whole, I find the prospect quite risky and don't generally use this method.


How would you go about making a non-sentient one?

[PhoenixRevival]

How would you go about making a non-sentient one?

I believe in the most basic of senses that would be a Sigil, though some think sigils are just a base form of a servitor.

You really cant make a non-sentient thought-form. If you did you'd end up with the magical equivilant of a still-born.

Depending on what you use and how you practice, best you could probably do to meet this goal is to create a spell with a simple goal and hard lined set reactions to a few stated variables... which is probably alot more trouble than its worth. :weirdsmil

On the topic of the servitors however, the danger really only comes from intent. Children make them all the time... the imaginary friends is the best example i can think of.

A child creates a though-form based on the need of a playmate... the thought-form responds in kind by doing so. The child powers it through their need and total belief. Could it really do harm? Not really.

[cydira]

How would you go about making a non-sentient one?

It's shockingly simple, actually. Focus your mental energies and visualization upon creating something and do not include sentience in the requirements. I generally do so for simple tools when I'm doing magical work within the context of the 'astral plane' or similar situations. And when I case to focus upon them, they cease to 'exist' upon that plane.

Usually, it's a mock up of a tool that I actually have on hand physically but I don't have access to at the time. For example, I will use a thought construct of my sickle when I'm engaged in unraveling or cutting magical ties that are no longer required or unhealthy. It's currently packed and I can't get to it right now, but if I could, then I'd be performing the action ritually on the physical level by cutting a cord with it. *shrugs*

I don't know if that helps or confuses the matter. :)


I believe in the most basic of senses that would be a Sigil, though some think sigils are just a base form of a servitor.

You really cant make a non-sentient thought-form. If you did you'd end up with the magical equivilant of a still-born.

Depending on what you use and how you practice, best you could probably do to meet this goal is to create a spell with a simple goal and hard lined set reactions to a few stated variables... which is probably alot more trouble than its worth.

On the topic of the servitors however, the danger really only comes from intent. Children make them all the time... the imaginary friends is the best example i can think of.

A child creates a though-form based on the need of a playmate... the thought-form responds in kind by doing so. The child powers it through their need and total belief. Could it really do harm? Not really.

I believe we're operating from two entirely different perspectives here. I must disagree with you upon the matter of the bolded portions above.

A thought-form, as I understand it, is simply a matter of visualization and it can be endowed with sentience and personality as the person visualizing wills it. As such, I could create a thought-form that resembles a person and not imbue it with any such traits. I'd have a mannequin of a thought-form.

And it's really not terribly difficult to do so. If you wish to formalize the process far more then is necessary, it's no more complicated then setting up a simple machine. You build it to the specifications you require and use it. *shrugs*

Now, on the second matter regarding the thought-forms constructed by children being unable to do real harm, I'm rather surprised by your cavalier attitude here. Have you ever witnessed a child being terrorized by their imaginary 'friend'? Have you not encountered the thought-form becoming a focus for their traumatized emotions and responses to a situation? The things can turn from being their imaginary friend (an ally, generally) to the monster under the bed (a tormentor) easily.

In these cases, the thought construct becomes the vehicle by which the subconscious mind of the child perpetuates the trauma or abuse visited upon them. Generally, this is dismissed as part of the child's shadow-self aspect, but even this concept is a thought-form/construct that can take on terrifying implications for the person working with it. Given the strength of a child's ability to focus their mind and their impressive flexibility and talent for suspending disbelief, they are more likely to be in the position of being terrorized by this 'shadow-self' or harmful thought-form/construct.

To say that a child's created thought construct is relatively harmless compared to those of adults is incredibly arrogant and dismissive of children, in my opinion. How are we to teach the younger generation if we are going to dismiss their abilities and talents, their efforts, and their natural inclinations towards magical skill (regardless of *any*belief system that you're operating from within the pagan/occult community)? I'm sorry, but I simply can not agree with the concept that you suggested above and I'm actually mildly offended by it.

That said, I may be misunderstanding what you have said. I also would like to state quite clearly that it is not my intent to attack or otherwise denigrate yourself. I apologize for any personal offense that I might have caused unintentionally due to the challenges of communicating via the written word. I do, however, object to and challenge your position. My reasoning is given above and I haven't any other hidden agendas here.

[kaosxmage]

The origin of these beasties go back to Tulpas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa) and it would be wise to bind these critters just as any other entity you want to work with.

If you want to work with these creations, then I suggest you read through Marik's Wonderful Essay on Sigils, Servitors, and Godforms (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/servitors.html).

--Kaos

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Yeah...My post at the very beginning of the thread , linked to the story of Alexandria - Neel , and her Tulpa , and what happened...

However , Kaosxmage , I would say the "origin" is far older...

Some prehistoric person , calling forth some spirit force , or other ,
perhaps even using blood sacrifice to do so...

"guard the cave door while I am gone"

"keep any strangers out of this space"

Yah know ?

As for records...yeah..."Tulpas" are the oldest we are aware of...:bigredgri



The origin of these beasties go back to Tulpas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa) and it would be wise to bind these critters just as any other entity you want to work with.
--Kaos

[kaosxmage]

Yeah...My post at the very beginning of the thread , linked to the story of Alexandria - Neel , and her Tulpa , and what happened...

However , Kaosxmage , I would say the "origin" is far older...

Some prehistoric person , calling forth some spirit force , or other ,
perhaps even using blood sacrifice to do so...

"guard the cave door while I am gone"

"keep any strangers out of this space"

Yah know ?

As for records...yeah..."Tulpas" are the oldest we are aware of...:bigredgri

You're probably right if we want to get down to the nitty gritty of sympathetic animism. The Shamans of yore, before they were even called shamans, were likely the first to use a thought form entity. I would wager that they actually believed they were summoning something that already existed. But that discussion gets us into models of magick. Same stuff - different lens.

Great thread!

--Kaos

[PhoenixRevival]

Cydria,

I dont feel attacked by you feelings on this so no worries there, however perhaps given your rebuttle I should clarify my possion as indeed we are on two seperate perspectives on the matter.


I believe we're operating from two entirely different perspectives here. I must disagree with you upon the matter of the bolded portions above.

A thought-form, as I understand it, is simply a matter of visualization and it can be endowed with sentience and personality as the person visualizing wills it. As such, I could create a thought-form that resembles a person and not imbue it with any such traits. I'd have a mannequin of a thought-form.

And it's really not terribly difficult to do so. If you wish to formalize the process far more then is necessary, it's no more complicated then setting up a simple machine. You build it to the specifications you require and use it. *shrugs*

Now, on the second matter regarding the thought-forms constructed by children being unable to do real harm, I'm rather surprised by your cavalier attitude here. Have you ever witnessed a child being terrorized by their imaginary 'friend'? Have you not encountered the thought-form becoming a focus for their traumatized emotions and responses to a situation? The things can turn from being their imaginary friend (an ally, generally) to the monster under the bed (a tormentor) easily.

In these cases, the thought construct becomes the vehicle by which the subconscious mind of the child perpetuates the trauma or abuse visited upon them. Generally, this is dismissed as part of the child's shadow-self aspect, but even this concept is a thought-form/construct that can take on terrifying implications for the person working with it. Given the strength of a child's ability to focus their mind and their impressive flexibility and talent for suspending disbelief, they are more likely to be in the position of being terrorized by this 'shadow-self' or harmful thought-form/construct.

To say that a child's created thought construct is relatively harmless compared to those of adults is incredibly arrogant and dismissive of children, in my opinion. How are we to teach the younger generation if we are going to dismiss their abilities and talents, their efforts, and their natural inclinations towards magical skill (regardless of *any*belief system that you're operating from within the pagan/occult community)? I'm sorry, but I simply can not agree with the concept that you suggested above and I'm actually mildly offended by it.

That said, I may be misunderstanding what you have said. I also would like to state quite clearly that it is not my intent to attack or otherwise denigrate yourself. I apologize for any personal offense that I might have caused unintentionally due to the challenges of communicating via the written word. I do, however, object to and challenge your position. My reasoning is given above and I haven't any other hidden agendas here.

To your first comment i've bolded above. This is an area to which we disagree. I believe that once something has the essence of thought, it becomes sentient. To use a quick metaphore, that sentience to start may be the difference between a insect and a human, but unlike an insect, continually feeding it has the issue of perpetuating its growth. Dont feed it and it either fades into the ether or if sealed within an object, goes dormant waiting for more food. IMO and experience anyway.

On to the next :bigredgri

In fact I have not seen this occure which is probably why last night I used it as an example, however I dont back down from its ligitimacy. The thought-form created has its intended purpose. Once that purpose is set, in the framework of what a servitor is, it will stick to that. A child however doesnt really have the foreknowledge to set the rule "dont terrorize me". If a servitor like this did go "rogue" as it were that could very well be a problem butI believe the chances of this are still remote.

And now to the last one to which I feel I desperately need to correct what you derived from my comment.

I do not in any way believe a thought-form created by a child is any less potent or properly created when compared to an adults. The "harmless" comment was used in regards to a playmate contstruct like an imaginary friend.
I dont dismiss a child's ability and point of fact, I believe most children would knock our magical socks off if they had the years of training and life experience others of the community have. However, this is also what would degrade their ability as a child is innocent of mind and have something alot of us lack; true belief. That training would also require life experience, which seems to sap belief like a shop-vac.

Soooo... In summation:crown:

Not insulted or angered...
Dont believe one can create a non-sentient thought-form (IMO)
Never seen a imaginary friend go "rogue"
aaaand... dont degrade the ability of children... again "knock our magical socks off"

:bow:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Works for me...and thanks for your answer...

It would also bring up the thought...with fewer people...

Stronger planetary magnetics...perhaps different currents ,
on astral levels...what was the charge , and power level of
those creations of the time ?

Were they different ?

Utilizing more of the rear brain , and first four circuits of
an eight circuitry system , with "fight or flight" , being
predominant , were the creations more powerful , or violent ?

Or , with the frontal lobe not as developed , would there be
an ability to "visualize" , thus just pulling on pure force ,
rather than a "form" ?

[PhoenixRevival]

Works for me...and thanks for your answer...

It would also bring up the thought...with fewer people...

Stronger planetary magnetics...perhaps different currents ,
on astral levels...what was the charge , and power level of
those creations of the time ?

Were they different ?

Utilizing more of the rear brain , and first four circuits of
an eight circuitry system , with "fight or flight" , being
predominant , were the creations more powerful , or violent ?

Or , with the frontal lobe not as developed , would there be
an ability to "visualize" , thus just pulling on pure force ,
rather than a "form" ?

Nice questions, they've got me boggled.

So many things have changed from that time its hard to believe that one event or another didnt change it around. More powerful? Perhaps but only because we rely less upon those things these days.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Yes...this is true...

However , there is the aspect of working with the telluric current ,
well known by those who built cathedrals , over old pagan sites , with temples , or not...

This current , which can be tapped into for magickal purposes ,
is strongest over underground chambers , and streams...

The moon was closer to earth , even by a small distance...science
does not recognize any force from the lunar sphere , yet in ritual ,
some of us "feel" certain energies...

So with these considerations , and different parts of the brain being
more utilized , or more activated , would this enhancement of what
might be called atavistic consciousness , create a more powerful
being ?

Similar to the manitou ?

Or , as I suggested , would the lack of a part of the brain to form
visualizations , such as the development of the cerebrum , then
tap more into elemental energy , and set for instance , wind as
the guardian of a "home" , or tribe , rather than a servitor , or
egregore , as we know them today ?

These I find interesting questions...:uhhuhuh:



More powerful? Perhaps but only because we rely less upon those things these days.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I did want to offer a small token for this thread...

A possible chant to use , if one desires...:uhhuhuh:


Psychic Wards ,
And Egregore ,
Protect Me House ,
From Dark Spirets Foray ;
I Wish Them Well , As Other Kin ,
Yet Me House ,
They Are Not Welcome In ;

Not In Me Circle ,
Not In Me Space , I Wish Them Well ,
To Another Place ;
I Charge Thee With This Sacred Task ,
Be Me Guardians , This I Ask ;
Protect Me House From Invasion ,
If Any Come , Stand Firm Thy Station ,
By The Power Of Three Times Three ,
With Astral Force , Do I Charge Thee !

[Gypsyballad]

[quote=cydira;3828335]It's shockingly simple, actually. Focus your mental energies and visualization upon creating something and do not include sentience in the requirements. I generally do so for simple tools when I'm doing magical work within the context of the 'astral plane' or similar situations. And when I case to focus upon them, they cease to 'exist' upon that plane.

Usually, it's a mock up of a tool that I actually have on hand physically but I don't have access to at the time. For example, I will use a thought construct of my sickle when I'm engaged in unraveling or cutting magical ties that are no longer required or unhealthy. It's currently packed and I can't get to it right now, but if I could, then I'd be performing the action ritually on the physical level by cutting a cord with it. *shrugs*

I don't know if that helps or confuses the matter. :)



Thank you, Cydira. I wasn't aware that one could actually create a non-sentient being. It sounds that they are much easier to control than a servitor or egregore. From what I've read, one has to actually absorb their essence, for lack of a better term, if they get out of control.

Thanx interesting posts! :smile:

[Gypsyballad]

I believe in the most basic of senses that would be a Sigil, though some think sigils are just a base form of a servitor.

You really cant make a non-sentient thought-form. If you did you'd end up with the magical equivilant of a still-born.

Depending on what you use and how you practice, best you could probably do to meet this goal is to create a spell with a simple goal and hard lined set reactions to a few stated variables... which is probably alot more trouble than its worth. :weirdsmil

On the topic of the servitors however, the danger really only comes from intent. Children make them all the time... the imaginary friends is the best example i can think of.

A child creates a though-form based on the need of a playmate... the thought-form responds in kind by doing so. The child powers it through their need and total belief. Could it really do harm? Not really.


Wow, I never thought that some children might have the ability to create their own imaginary playmates. Although it does make sense, in that children are more in tuned to their psychic abilities than adults are.

When I was a child I remember crossing the street one day with my mom, and holding her hand, and feeling someone else holding my other hand. I remember speaking to that someone. But I always got the impression that it was a guardian angel or a spirit guide. And I know I did not have the ability to create an imaginary friend at that time, if ever. But I was more psychic then, than I am now. Although I am trying to see if I could remedy that situation!

Thank you, interesting post! :smile:

[No More Apologies]

The origin of these beasties go back to Tulpas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa) and it would be wise to bind these critters just as any other entity you want to work with.

If you want to work with these creations, then I suggest you read through Marik's Wonderful Essay on Sigils, Servitors, and Godforms (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/servitors.html).

--Kaos

Thanks man, I lost all my Chaos magic links somewhere and I knew there were a few goodies in there.

[No More Apologies]

I started learning about servitors when I was in high school. It began with a concept called "Elementaries" in one of Trish Telesco's books.

Cool, thanks.

I think I first read about them in SRW's books. I vaguely remember her mentioning them, oh and something in Witchcraft: Theory and Practice by Ly de Angeles. I love those books still for random ideas. One of these days I ought to sell them though, so they don't continue sitting in dusty boxes in my closet.

That said, Ly's books is one of my absolute favourites for contemporary witchcraft even still. Something so cerebral yet intuitive in her writing.

[No More Apologies]

You're probably right if we want to get down to the nitty gritty of sympathetic animism. The Shamans of yore, before they were even called shamans, were likely the first to use a thought form entity. I would wager that they actually believed they were summoning something that already existed. But that discussion gets us into models of magick. Same stuff - different lens.

So true. I guess there are just those who stick with a lens they prefer, and those who find what works.

Now personally, I prefer to find the lens that fits my purpose, but to each their own right?

[kaosxmage]

So true. I guess there are just those who stick with a lens they prefer, and those who find what works.

Now personally, I prefer to find the lens that fits my purpose, but to each their own right?

Agreed. If you don't get that special feeling from what you're working with it's best to just move on. To get the secret name of Ra one must be willing to play with scorpions.

Leave no stone unturned.

--Kaos

[PhoenixRevival]

To get the secret name of Ra one must be willing to play with scorpions.

Leave no stone unturned.

--Kaos

I rather like that statement... Truth put simply. =)

[No More Apologies]

Agreed. If you don't get that special feeling from what you're working with it's best to just move on. To get the secret name of Ra one must be willing to play with scorpions.

Hey that's a good quote for someone's signature :)

[Philosophia]

I tend to see a servitor as a more limited creation - and an egregore as one that is continuing to grow and change over time (and generally as one that has the input of multiple people over a period of time.)

My own experience with an egregore suggests:
- Leaving one to grow without regular check-ins can lead to any number of complex problems.

- It's important to set basic parameters initially: "Here's the stuff you should be doing." "Here's the stuff we may ask you to do as well." "Here's the people who can ask you to do these things". "You should not do these things if X and Y would occur."

- Having some method for dispelling the egregore is not impossible (and is quite possibly a good idea), but it's not a trivial process, especially if you have other individuals involved in the creation or function who aren't present for that work.)

- That once it's created, it doesn't need the group energy to form - but it does need the group energy to 'keep it busy', as it were - an unoccupied egregore is problematic.

All very good points that I agree with. For me, I follow these rules; to never forget them (i.e. keep regular checks on them and "guard" them properly), make sure you have a solid foundation of knowledge of them, and to know a good dispelling ritual if your egregore gets out of hand. Servitors are relatively easy if they have one purpose and are properly "guarded" (for lack of better term).

[No More Apologies]

Servitors are relatively easy if they have one purpose and are properly "guarded" (for lack of better term).

I believe in common mythology it's less "guarded" and more "monitored", but YMMV. Terms again. I find they need energy top ups and regular check-ins, often at a designated regular ritual time such as monthly. But again, haven't used one in so many years and haven't needed to that I just don't.

[CheshireEyes]

I shall post my personal experiences later...errand day...

But , for now...

http://www.tulpa.com/explain/alexandra.html

It ended up with her needing the assistance of a number of monks ,
to dispel , and dissolve this Tulpa...

There are always dangers , in any tradition...especially for a beginner...

"A little bit of knowledge is dangerous"...:bigredgri
Agreed, but, in the proper experienced hands can be quite....useful.... :hahugh: