I have a soft spot for the title Sorcerer and the art of such called Sorcery.
And yeah, I'll admit it, it goes back to that infamous Apprentice by the name of Mickey Mouse.

What I have noticed over the years in various occult literature is the use of terms mostly has been to derogate whatever magickal approach for which the writers gave low regard.

What disappoints me is: regardless of how cool the terms are, the fact remains that there really is not a specific kind of magickal approach associated with them. I do not mean one particular universal paradigm here. I mean a kind of flavor that when tasted with one's meta-sensibilities clearly indicates a Sorcerer and Sorcery just as much as certain spices, herbs, and sauces clearly indicate unique ethnic cooks and their respective cuisines.

My preference would be for Sorcery to reference pathways that lay between the traditional old school and the modern new school - brushing shoulders with the nature-based and rubbing elbows with the technological - enabling group participation and allowing fierce independence - etc...

Regardless of my preference, however, I remain surprised that no one has been able to do for Sorcerers and Sorcery what Gardner (and Alexander, Buckland, et.al.) did for Witches and Witchcraft.

Note: make no mistake with that last parallel. I am not saying that Sorcery should end up exactly like Witchcraft today. The point of making that parallel is: those authors took those terms and dared to cook and to create memorable meals for a magickal approach that has a consistency, fragrance, flavor, and ambiance not only unique - but also very recognizable - compared to non-Witchcraft approaches ... even with all the diversity within Witches and Witchcraft.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 4 2008, 12:40 PM

I've been doing some more thinking about Sorcerers and Sorcery - with specific regard to what I would like to see this Pathway become.

The real biggie for me would be for Sorcery to be as fresh as possible. Such freshness would entail stepping away from the old models (elementalism, astrology, the kabbalah, the tarot, the runes, evocation, invocation, calendrical waypoints, sigils, etc...) toward something new - but not toward something so wide open that all cohesion falls forever out of reach.

In the same vein, I don't want to see Sorcery encumbered with making and using an expansive arsenal of ritual tools to the point that a Sorcerer doing a working looks like some ruffian from encrusted with too much bling and waving around a plethora of blongs. And, at the same time, I don't want to see Sorcery pander to the lazy - who manage to conjure up just enough energy to sneer down at formalized workings, so that their slacking can be sold as indicating some sort of rarefied attainment above industrious others.

In light of that, the question still remains: what path through the magickal forest can be blazed that won't turn into just a cheap parallel of an already established, beaten path - won't turn into one of the crazy uber super highways - and yet would be worthy to inherit the venerable title?

I'm still working that one out.

In many ways concepts such as sorcery have been deluded, repackaged, and reworked numerous thousands of times over through out the years. The term Sorcerer is often times synonymous with the term Wizard. Yet if anyone where to ask you what a wizard is you'd have a better ability to define it due to more capable examples. More over the fiction of a number of RPG's has added to this by creating a concept (artificial as it is) of the division of Sorcerer and Wizard. This results in a concept that exists more in the mind likely than in the reality of the situation. However rather than spend my time downplaying fiction lets look at the basic concepts evoked in the spell work/magick done by both Sorcerers and Wizards in fiction (as well as their real counterparts).

The Wizard: The classic text book wizard is, by his or her nature, a text book wizard. They rely on spells, ceremonies, incantations, and often sympathetic magicks coupled with higher form "High Magicks". That is to say they are far more the "bookish" type of wizard. They are considered Scholars in the field of magick and metaphysics in general

The Sorcerer: Classically the Sorcerer is one who is seen in command of great power. They tend to harness energies natural, or un-natural, for their own purposes. The name invokes a concept in the readers mind of the powerful, barely controlled, and bursting with magickal fortitude. However where the Wizard has learned the manipulation of such forces of nature it seems the Sorcerer has learned to channel these forces in less controlled ways.

The End Result: What we see, just from the imagery invoked by the names, is a contrast of restraint versus raw power. Both concepts are beneficial in their own right. Though its hard to deny that the term Sorcerer gains negative press this is probably because the term seems to indicate more of a "blast cannon" personality (no doubt from channeling all that energy (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)). Ultimately the Wizard refines magick to a purpose, and the Sorcerer calls upon raw magick to achieve his ends. Often times the lines between the two blur as no doubt in fiction (and reality) Sorcerers are seen reading from ancient tomes, or learned books, and Wizards are seen going off the handle with more magick than they can handle.

The problem is that Sorcery HAS been well defined in several places, and within several branches of ocuclt study, and all in a derogatory way. The most detailed, and complete is in the works of Franz Bardon.

Especially in his second book, The Practice of Magical Evocation. He gives fair warning to the Magicians who are working thru his system to not fall trap to the desire to skip steps, and jump to exercises before they are ready or they run the risk of becoming common Sorcerers.

A Sorcerer is someone has hasnt done the work of developing their own magical powers and abilities, but instead wants to jump to the "end results" without putting in the hard work of mastery.....so they end up gaining power from pacts with spirits. (basically is how its described by Bardon). The Sorcerer tries to summon spirits and demons , or use other magical powers that are way beyond their current level of development. What sometimes happens is that a demon or spirit will see that they can amuse themselves for awhile by playing around with this person, so they either appear to the Sorcerer or they cause the magic spell the Sorcerer is trying to cast work.

In the second case, say someone wants to cast a spell to make that girl of their dreams fall in lust with them, and throw themselves at them. They have found some spell in some of the shelf book at Barnes and Noble or from the interenet, etc. They get worked up, and cast the spell, and.........in most cases nothing happens. BUT if some spirit happened to be in the area at the time, they might decide to make the spell work. So in that case, the Sorcerer THINKS their spell works because they have some incredible powers. They dont. It was the spirit doing it.......and here is the trap. If the Sorcerer keeps casting that spell, then the second time they have agreed to a kind of pact with the spirit that caused the spell to work. The more they cast that spell, and others, the stronger the pact becomes. So the Sorcerer is running around all over town making girls jump in bed with him left and right, thinking its because he is really powerful and magical.......when in reality he is digging himself in deeper with the spirit that really empowers the magic.

When the Sorcerer dies, they travel to where the spirit that they were in the pact with resides, and must serve that spirit for a period of time. If the Sorcerer is lucky, they eventually get a chance to be reborn and try again on Earth. BUT its very easy for the same spirit to tempt the Sorcerer the second time around....they are already attached to other in a way, so its extra hard for the Sorcerer NOT to fall into the trap a second time around. If they do, this time they have lost their immortal souls because if they go back to serving the spirit, its forever the second time.

Its a LOT more complicated than that, and you should read the Bardon stuff yourself, but what I wrote above is a pretty good summary.

I've heard the same basic description of what Sorcery is from 8 or 9 different tradtions/paths of occult and magical study over the last 30 years: Sorcerers are weak and undisciplined and only appear to have power because they serve spirits that are powerful. Without their masters power, they have no power.

SO....Im just saying. I dont necessarily agree with all that....but I have always heard the term used in a derogatory way....and in every case because of the basic definition above. Its like the definition of Chaos Magic.....I always thought that a real Chaos Magician would be a person who used NO RITUALS of anykind.....instead they learned how to reach out and tap directly into the raw energy of Chaos......the energy that everything came from, and that everything will return too. Then they used the energy of Chaos itself to make changes in reality....But every single book on Chaos Magic I have seen teaches....thats right....rituals. They have just devised a new tradition of ritual magic, and dont want to call themselves ritual magicians so used the name Chaos Magic instead of Ritual Magic. To me its a croc......a REAL Chaos Mage would never use a ritual of anykind for anything. They would simply summon up a healthy burst of raw Chaos....shape it into what they want, and cast it out into the world.

It sorta sounds like what you percieve Sorcery and Sorcerer as is what I envision real Chaos Magic as. Someone who draws from the source of all power, energy/ magic and shapes that energy with their will and throw it out into the world.

But you know.....there IS already a well defined definition of Sorcery that has existed for at least 30 years (because it was at least that long when I first heard definitions of what various paths of magic were), and the Bardon definitions and explanations have existed longer than that.

The term "sorcery" no doubt has some negative connotations. However, in my opinion, the art of sorcery and the power gained from its practice comes from the individual, whereas a "wizard" or traditional magician gains power from knowledge of traditional rituals and practice. If you want to be a sorcerer, then be one. Do not let the thoughts or feelings of others get in the way of your own goals. I don't believe there needs to be a distinction between any type of magickal practitioner. You are whatever you want to be. Have confidence in what you yourself are doing and let others think of you what they will. When I perform a ritual or cast a spell, I do not worry about following instructions from a book... I tap into the innate power of reality and do what I believe is necessary. My magick works because i will it to work. If that makes me a sorcerer then so be it.

Here's an aspect of sorcerers I always associate with the word. The ancient taoists in the mountains of china were often referred to by common folk as "the sorcerers in the mountains". I believe like another in this thread that a sorcerer is a personal experiencer and knower, he is not a part of a coven, cult or tradition - and because of this his power is greater - he is innovative and can do anything withinonly the confines of his own wisdom and knowledge. To me, witchcraft is love spells, healing spells, help spells, and simple things like that. A sorcerer of sorcery is a conjurer, an illusionist, a geomancer, a weathermancer, a divinator. A sorcerer does not need any tools, in an empty room with no clothes or candles he can create a spells and effects using his will power alone. This is my definition of a sorcerer. He is wise enough to lead many religions, yet follows nor leads any, he is skilled with the motion of energy. And unlike witches, he can converse with the evillest and most benign - the compassionate and most benign without a sense of judgement or difference. All beings are his subjects, yet he remains respectful and honourable. A sorcerer is every card in the tarot deck, and then some. And all males have this potential. This is the masculine side of the hidden realms, where as witchcraft is the feminine. IMO.

I tend to view "sorcery" as a sort of blend of the above listed examples. In comparison to the wizard or magi, the sorcerer seems (to me) to be much more a sort of "channeled" and a fairly "direct" magick form. I think this can take the form of working intimately with a more powerful entity which conveys power to the sorcerer, or it can come in the form of using one's innate magickal/psychic ability to tap into power & energies both vast and largely unknown. When I think of a sorcerer, I think of almost a sort of blend of western magick and something more visceral and 'hands on' like tai chi. Traditional storytelling seems to cast the sorcerer in a position where they may use ritual setting and/or ritual items, but can also perform magick without them, by directly channeling the energies & forces they wish to work with, and working in a way which is more art than science. I also tend to think of sorcery as more referring to a style which works with emotional and elemental energies, and is not 'sedate'.

But all of that is just my gut-impression of the word "sorcery". My view may be horribly tainted by my own magical practice & ideals (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As for the 'negatives' of working in a way where you garner power through a friendly entity... I think that the assumption that such a relationship *must* be a negative experience is a pretty huge leap. In a way I think this more reflects a basic human desire for the universe to be a 'fair' place, and for nobody else to get a free lunch if you're not getting one. There is no difference between that and a deity-relationship based magick style, except that one is more accepted as a part of many religious paths. Whether such a relationship would be healthy or unhealthy would depend entirely on the nature and intent of the entity in question. I don't see any automatic downside to it. Though there is some risk. And anyone deeply interested in 'self' empowerment must ask themselves whether such a relationship is in effect empowering them or atrophying them. I don't think the answer will always be the same. With entity interaction, I find that 'diversity' is the rule.

As for "skipping ahead" in magical practice. Any chaote does that as well. I daresay that if you never skip ahead, then you will be ill prepared to "pioneer" your magical path when you run out of training resources. Magical systems are just the experience & sensibilities of those who have gone before you. Sometimes they can serve as a valuable insight, other times 'not so much'. In the end it's *your* magic working path. No two are exactly alike. If it's your path to skim & skip ahead, you may miss something important... or you may just save a lot of tedious time and get where you're going quicker. Its kinda like speeding, you *might* get a ticket, but then again you *might* just get there quicker without incident. I'd venture to say that when it comes to magick, if you habitually speed ahead, you will eventually get some tickets. But I'd argue that the process of getting these tickets is a school of experience unto itself, one missed out on by those with less initiative. None of which even touches on the subject of the pitfalls of following a flawed teacher (hint, they've all got flaws). And some who choose to teach or lay down working systems for others to follow, are in fact following their own ego more than sharing valuable experience. At the end of the day, I don't think there is anyone who ever became a great explorer by following well beaten roads. Take that with a grain of salt if you like, I am very ambitious magically speaking, and I am fundamentally at odds with a "paint by numbers" approach to my art.



Except that "chaos magick" is not definitively the art of working with "chaos energy". It's a metaparadigm, or an approach to working with paradigms, it's not a 'chaos-elemental' magick system. This is a common misconception.
That said, I could loosely be called a chaote (its debatable, given my paradigmatic adherences), and I don't typically use ritual in my magick. Chaos magick is not a system of magick, it's a system for working with other systems of magick... many of which are fairly ritual based.

This post has been edited by Kath: Oct 10 2009, 02:54 PM

There ARE such things as sorceresses, you know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)



A woman is every bit as capable of engaging in sorcery as any man. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wizard.gif)






I don't see myself as a witch. I don't work with herbs, roots, etc. I could frankly care less about what phase the moon is in (I most certainly do not let it dictate my spellcraft).


I see myself as a sorceress -- every bit the sorceress as any male sorcerer.

This post has been edited by The Sorceress: Jan 1 2010, 08:41 AM

Agreed, Sorceress. I regard myself as a Sorceress.

Ceremonial magicians like to use the term sorcery to define magick that is not their high theurgic idea of magick. To Aleister Crowley, Austin Osman Spare was a sorcerer--what Crowley called a "black brother." What he meant by this was that AOS (and others that Crowley termed black brothers--including Jack Parsons!) weren't aligned with his idea of magick. Bardon is an expert in ceremonial magickn so he also has decided to label occultists that are his idea or "right" and not. Kraig does the same thing (I hate his flawed book by the way eventhough everyone thinks its great). Not all occultists are ceremonialists or theurgists--and post-modern magick especially is not particularly theurgic. Occultists who are not ceremonialists and aren't into Pagan witchcraft can be termed sorcerers. If you look in a dictionary, sorcerer, mage, and wizard mean about the same thing. If you look up the word mago or maga or magoi in a foreign dictionary, the defintion is "sorcerer." If some groups need to hairsplit and make up terminology, whatever. The words magoi ,witch , and Pagan were highly derogatory and exclusionary terms until the mid 19th century despite persistent popular belief.

As for what Chaos Magick is, zyguh, you are misinformed. Here is a definition of Chaos Magick from a CM board I belong to:

"Chaos magic is a form of magic which was first formulated in West Yorkshire, England, in the 1970s. Through a variety of techniques often reminiscent of Western ceremonial magic or neoshamanism, many practitioners believe they can change both their subjective experience and objective reality, though some chaos magicians dispute that magic occurs through paranormal means.

Although there are a few techniques unique to chaos magic (such as some forms of sigil magic), chaos magic is often highly individualistic and borrows liberally from other belief systems, due to chaos magic having a central belief that belief is a tool. Some common sources of inspiration include such diverse areas as science fiction, scientific theories, ceremonial magic, shamanism, Eastern philosophy, world religions, and individual experimentation. Despite tremendous individual variation, chaos magicians often work with chaotic and humorous paradigms, such as the worship of Hundun from Taoism or Eris from Discordianism."

Chaos magicians do not draw on "universal Chaos" unless it is their belief paradigm to do so. They draw on potentiality. "Nothing is true; thus, everything is permitted." CMT practitioners can be said to be "sorcerers."

This post has been edited by SororZSD23: Jan 1 2010, 11:19 AM