Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. Not a problem, the mention of his name made me go on a memory tour. I still have my books from when I fell in love with his style. Beardsley made me want to draw.
  4. Oooh I think I understand the confusion - he's mentioned in an article I've linked earlier but I confess I scanned it for mentions of Houghton et al so I was struck with that quote but I discarded the rest. Beardsley is mentioned indeed but not as a mediumnistic artist, just as a point of comparison for what the author sees as A.O. Spare's "depravity" (lol)
  5. Onyx


    Love the first one with the cat "I did"!
  6. I have several books of Aubrey Beardsley's art. The Lysistrata of Aristophanes, Le Morte D'Arthur, The Rape of the Lock, The Early Work of Aubrey Beardsley and The Later work of Aubrey Beardsley. So you can tell that I am quite a Fan! I just love his use of line. Nothing in these books suggest that he was a Spiritualist.
  7. Semantics aside, it does cover a lot in one place in regards to certain techniques, however there is also a lot it neglects. Particularly those common to most witches and after all, this is a site for witches.
  8. Selaara


    Lol. Thank you. I needed a laugh today. 🙂
  9. Wow I haven't heard that name in a while - love his art as well! I think it's fair to assume that every mid to late Victorian we know of was some shade of Spiritualist haha, although I had no idea he was either. I wonder to what extent his Spiritualist practice impacted his art though, have you read anything? I don't personally sense that 'revealed' quality in his work the way I do in other artists', some of whom I've talked about here, but I may just be missing something. If he didn't use mediumship in his art, though, that may be because the role of medium tended to be assumed by women, and so Spiritualist men had little direct spirit contact.
  10. Last week
  11. Thanks spectropoetics! I have heard of them, my friend mentioned that she belongs to this "Church" I do not see her often, unfortuately, or I would be quizing her more about them.
  12. I am a huge fan of Aubrey Beardsley's style of art. I did not realise that he was a spiritualist, but he does fit into the Victorian timeframe. Thanks for the links, they have been very interesting.
  13. My favorite "art deck" is a newer one, the Pagan Otherworlds. It's stunning, and very potent, as it tries to synthesize different historical interpretations of the Tarot - you can divine with anything but it's nice to work with a well thought-out tool. I'm waiting for a Joanna Newsom deck I supported on Kickstarter to arrive, I'm incredibly excited. You can see the artist's work here. Otherwise imo you can't beat the Marseille.
  14. Thank you for leading me down this rabbit hole, Onyx, this woman and her circle of artist/medium friends are fascinating! It's exactly what Hilma af Klint and her Theosophist friends did, only even earlier. They too painted with spirits, and as a result, they too explored art forms previously unseen, that we later - decades later, when men such as Kandisky and Mondrian picked it up in turn and exhibited it publicly - came to call 'abstract'. Here are examples of Barbara Honywood's work, for those curious: I find it beautiful, both delicate and exuberant. It may not look like much but it's distinctly original - this was painted in the mid 19th century! I'm even more taken with her fellow Spiritualist painter friend Georgiana Houghton, though: It's astounding. We had to wait a full century, with the advent of psychedelic art, to see such movement in paintings again. She must have been tapping into a very powerful current. As I was looking up these artists, I came across an interesting quote in this article: The absolute certainty with which the writer draws his "conclusion" is extremely funny to me. He's so close to the point though.
  15. It stands for Unitarian Universalism, an organisation formed of many different religions, spiritualities and even non-theistic cosmologies, all in the spirit of religious cooperation and spiritual advancement - from what little I know! It's a non-denominational 'church' in a wider-than-Christian sense.
  16. Well, obviously this went all to Hell in a Handbasket!
  17. @nellopea I think it's hilarious in the best possible way that you attempted this at the UU in Texas. If you're still around these parts, I'm so curious as to how it went? Did you attempt other rituals in the book? They seem so particular to Gary's own little patch of Cornwall, I love to hear stories of their transplant.
  18. phantasmagoria gave great advice! I feel like adding my two cents because these are anchoring points I don't see discussed that often, unfortunately. Start with basic astronomy. It's probably the biggest field of scientific vulgarization, there are tons of solid, entertaining and beautiful educational material out there. You just need to understand the position of each of the 7 traditional planets (+ Uranus, Neptune and Pluto if you want to use them but only use the planets to start) relative to the sun and to earth, the time it takes for them to complete their orbit, to what extent they're visible from earth, and what they roughly look like. That last point is so important. It's crazy how well the images we've been able to get for what amounts to a blip in human history symbolically match the historical delineations: Mars not only glows red, it has a huge gash like a battle scar; Jupiter is ENORMOUS, like, you have no idea; Uranus is contrarian through and through, he won't even spin the same way every other planet does, etc. Rather than learning a list of keywords by rote, anchor your understanding in the astronomy, the way astrologers were always meant to. Relatedly, go out and look at the sky. Even in a highly light polluted environment, you can see tons of stuff. I'm in a big city and I can see Mars rage every night right now since he's been stuck in Aries for most of the year, we shake our fists at one another, it's great. It's absolutely fantastic that we can cast charts in milliseconds for free on the internet but it also means we've lost context for most of what we talk about. That's how you end up with really bizarre takes in modern astrology - if only people would look up from their computer screens (and understand that they're part of a tradition), most of these empty arguments would be cleared up in a flash. The point about knowing the length of the orbits: it's mostly so you know how personally important different placements are. No, it doesn't mean anything on its own that you have Pluto in Scorpio - Pluto spends up to 30 years or so in a sign before moving on in the zodiac, your whole generation has the same Pluto sign! Compare that to the Moon, who spends 2 1/2 days in a sign on average - the sign placement of your Moon is much more directly relevant to you personally. Understand the Moon phases: they're a product of the Moon's relationship to the Sun. At the new moon, the Moon is conjunct the Sun; at the full Moon, she's opposite; at the Quarters, she makes different sorts of squares. Understanding this gives you a grounded basis from which to understand aspects. As for the zodiac, don't start with lists of keywords and trendy buzzwords. Start with elements, polarities, modalities and rulership and derive meaning from them. No, Scorpio isn't about death and sex, it's a fixed feminine water sign, and it's the nocturnal domicile of Mars. Secrecy, dedication, stagnation, depth, instinct etc come to mind - you're building a larger picture, one you can remember easily because it's not an arbitrary archetype, there's a logic to it. Finally, and this is really my point in a nutshell: form an understanding of the underlying logic of astrology. It's a system, and so it should be well-oiled to allow the properly oracular moment to take place when you look at a chart. In addition to what I've already written, look into the Thema Mundi to gain an understanding of rulerships and other dignities, even aspects and house meanings. As for book recommendations for complete beginners, I think Carole Taylor's Astrology: Using the Wisdom of the Stars in your Every Day Life is fantastic. She has a very different approach to mine, I don't agree with everything, but she's a wonderful teacher and writer. It's the only beginner book I've found that doesn't drill anything in your head: it gives you the tools to start applying and observing astrology in concrete ways. This other book is more advanced and it's on an apparently narrow topic but it's actually fundamental. It gives you everything you need to know to understand the birth chart not as an abstract 2D circle on your screen but as it relates to the actual sky it represents: The Houses: Temples of the Sky, by Deborah Houlding.
  19. I like using directions, they're constant and always available. Plus I'm almost always aware of where I am in relation to the cardinal points, that's just how my mind and body work, I'm very spatially oriented. For me the points are about the sun's journey throughout the day, and so my associations are very simple but they can encompass basically anything I can think of. The sun dawns in the East (new beginnings, vigor, revelations), culminates in the South (high points, ardor, visibility), sets in the West (banishings, returns, dissolution) and disappears in the North (secrecy, death). So the power I find in each direction isn't inherent in it, nor is it because specific spirits dwell there. It's an accumulation of this primordial cycle.
  20. Thank you for explaining where you're coming from, Phagos, I understand your circumspection. Yeah I try not to get too bogged down in terminology, which is a struggle of constant reexamination - I do love a good jargon haha (I mean look at my damn username), but only as long as it illuminates. And so often I find the witch/magician/occultist distinction unhelpful. Most times it's more about demographics or aesthetics than actual praxes - I have a lot more in common with self-styled magician/occultist McCarthy than with your local eclectic Wiccan, self-styled witch. What we mean by traditional witch here has more in common with, say, Aidan Wachter's self-styled sorcery than with the Gardnerian Wiccan who calls herself a traditional witch (as she has every right to, since she's a member of a witchcraft tradition). To get back to the heart of the topic, I think good training is about the how rather than the what. And Quareia is the closest thing I've found to a self-contained pathway into the how, not to mention it's the most accessible training possible. Here's an example of what I mean by that - if it makes you go through exercises about ancient Egyptian cosmology, it's only for you to go back to your own myths with the skill to work them magically. The author just happens to really resonate with ancient Egypt, for profound reasons way beyond "because Mathers said so" haha. Also - new to witchcraft doesn't mean new to life, or critical thinking, I think we (the collective, anonymous we) tend to forget that a bit sometimes.
  21. I don't think I would recognize light, if not for the dark as a contrast. This year, well pretty much the years from 2016 on, it's been more dark than light. I don't believe that the dark will prevail, but I'd like to see at least a bit more light.
  22. I think it's more of a knee jerk reaction to the terminology with regards to angels. I've become so accustomed to reading wiccan fluff and new age nonsense that it immediately puts me off. As said I only had a quick look at what they are offering. My remark to Golden Dawn is the Egyptian imagery and focus on Egyptian gods. How it seems to empathise ceremonial magic and occult practices. It is the matter of fact way that they describe things. For example the way they talk about the layers of the underworld and the tools they say to use, also very ceremonial. I am reading this as a Traditional British Witch and I could see very little on folk practises and lore and certainly no emphasis on the local element or indeed the old european/british witchcraft aspect. The appropriation of other cultural practices and beliefs is what's giving off the neo-pagan vibes. Also the term magician being used as opposed to witch. Again I may be getting caught on the terminology rather than the content but for new a "witch" starting out, this may come across as confusing. I have just looked up the director/founder of this Quareia and they are an Occultist, so the content doesn't surprise me now. For someone looking to study the occult then this, I'm sure, is a very good resource and some of the disciplines in acquiring skills such as visualisation can be used for a number of systems & paths. But as far as Witchcraft goes, I'm not so sure. Traditional witchcraft is open, of course, to all sorts of traditions and practices. I myself enjoy learning about them but I will not incorporate them into my practice. My witchcraft is a very earthly local affair.
  23. Neo-pagan? How so? Part of the course entails learning the distinction between forging magical alliances with deities (among many other spirits) vs having a religious connection to the same entities, as magicians have done for... ever, I'd say? McCarthy's sources are grimoires, ancient texts, and her own experience with different lands, short-circuiting neo-paganism and the New Age. Well, the Golden Dawn had archived all magical knowledge they could (and we should be grateful, despite how terrible their translations were sometimes), so of course many types of magic we weave today might remind you of them in a supercifial way, they're just drawing from the same source. Their innovation - which was their fatal error - was to try to systematize it all, as if there was a single key to magic. That's why GD initiates don't even do magic, they just learn correspondence tables lmao. As for angels and demons - it's been the purview of cunning-folk and witches to use whatever works and to move between paradigms for as long as we've been around (the opposite of GD types, in short). You'll find that angels and demons have been used in magic for a very long time, both by court magicians and folk practitioners. They're just types of spirits, they were around before they were classified in these terms by monotheistic religions. To the witch, it doesn't matter what they're called, it matters what their sphere of influence is and angel/demon is a useful shortcut, which is all that matters. Be careful that by trying to avoid dogma, you don't become dogmatic yourself 😉
  24. Recommendations are fine 😉 I had a quick look at it and it does seem to offer quite comprehensive courses, although I am getting strong neo-pagan/Golden Dawn vibes from it. Perhaps it's the imagery they use has tainted my opinion of it. The talk of angels & demons will always ring alarm bells for me. But that is just a personal grimace. The issue I have with any of these types of organisations/sites is, for a beginner they are being spoon fed information. And when there is a lot of information coming from one source, the student will no doubt absorb their views and assume truth. If you take everything you learn with a pinch of salt, cross reference and do your own research, then that's fine. But a lot of those new to witchcraft won't, especially those who are caught up in the witch pop trend looking for easy answers. For those not so new to their craft then I'm sure certain areas of these courses can help home in some of their skills.
  25. The Spirit Art I am refering to is also called Automatic writting and the lady was called Mrs. Honywood. You can find it if you Google Spirit Art, mrs. Honywood. She said she was drawing peoples Souls.
  26. Dua Lipa's new song is an extended ode to Hekate. She could just be surfing on the trendy 'witch aesthetic' but something tells me that someone on this set knew what they were doing.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...