Goetic controversy, Aspect of unconscious or indpndnt being? Options

Ok folks, this one's gonna be doozer.

Over and over again in my studies and on this forum, I keep encountering this intruiging controversy/argument that I can’t help but feel drawn into. It comes into play when usually having to do with Goetic spirits, but I think its relevant for other spirits/gods as well.
It’s basically this: on one side, we have the psychological philosophy that these beings are really aspects of our own collective unconscious, and by contacting, controlling, and/or dominating them, you are in effect doing the same thing to areas and zones within your own deeper self.
On the other hand, we have those who mostly consider this idea laughable, and feel that these beings possess an independent and autonomous self, and that by contacting, controlling, and/or dominating them, you are in effect doing the same to those beings and the energy/powers they possess, and not to anything else (although these beings do have a role and sphere of influence in the universe at large).
Now the question I put to this forum is this: has anyone ever considered the possibility that it is really both, simultaneously.
(Ok, so I have to make a confession before I continue. A part of me feels shameful and unworthy to argue about such things because for the last ten years, I have been what you call an “armchair” magickian. But I am now sick and tired of this, and have recently mustered up the faith and discipline to begin practical training. However, I still have my own personal paradigms which I like to share and discuss, so I will go on.)
In Buddist philosophy, nothing is independent, as all phenomena are more interrelated than we can imagine and has its source in a chain of cause and effect reaching back infinitely, and triggering a chain of cause and effect reaching forward infinitely. Likewise, nothing exists from its own side (do not confuse this with the nihilist belief that nothing exists), as the experience of all phenomena, being beyond the definitions and limitations of the mind, relies on the illusion of the perciever and the percieved, the subjective and the objective; this being a symptom of the ignorant, deluded, “samsaric” mind.
Still with me?
Now the Buddhist concept of the Mind is vastly alien to the Western idea. Westerners, having inherited the Judeo-Christian tradition of spirit vs. flesh, hold on to the idea that the mind, or consciousness, is this little “isolated core” truly separate from all else in an infinite field of space/time, holding in its fabric a bunch of jumbled objects all relating to eachother in infinite ways. The mind, therefore, is this curious little self-reflective mechanism whose source lies solely in the chemical processes of the brain (However, if you’ve seen “What the bleep do we know?”, you’ll know that this old paradigm is being seriously questioned). The brain, (considered a miracle of an object, as its creation was surley either evolutionary chance or the intention of a higher being) and its consciousness is a mystery, but a mystery left to the study of psychology. Things like black holes and ecosystems have nothing to do with the personal conscious and unconscious.
The Buddhist concept of the mind, however, is quite different. Imagine, if you will, the entire universe as a single unified mind, whose nature is like the sky – clear, radiant, without form or substance. Basically, the Ain-Soph, or Shunyata. Awareness that simply is. (“I am that I am”). This is the “nondual mind”.
Now, imagine our mind as being like the cadeuceus-head looking back at itself, staring into the infinite depths of its own radiant intelligence, without knowing itself, beleiving firmly in the reality of its own egohood, and its seperateness from all other things. Whatever lies in its mind, no matter how deep it lies, has its source in its mind. That, I believe, is the suffering spoken of by the Buddha. And that is my argument on the matter of spirits, Goetic or not. It is your own consciousness, your own Buddhic-consciousness.
I hope I’ve given you all something to think about, and I am up to discussing this further.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)
Flyingmojo

I think the fact that it is so often discussed is an indication of how interesting it is to a lot of people and the fact that no-one appears to have a definite answer applicable in all situations and agreed upon by others

Seems logical doesn't it, but think of this: ask a human being to walk exactly in the same way and tread on exactly the same footprints as he did before without looking down and at a normal pace to prove that he can walk - its almost impossible, yet what he does to carry out that experiment is to walk. 

I think we may be along the same lines here because your analogy describes what I find to be problematic. In your situation a human being is asked to walk in exactly the same footprints as he did before.

This idea is proposed to 10 people in bland, dirty, auditiorium.

This is what tends to happen:

• 2 quote bad sixties music lyrics declaring "Nancy Sinatra said These Boots are made for Walking, so indeed we should be able to walk."
• 2 more call on a long dead philosopher without actually understanding anything he said.
• 3 decide to posit scenarios such as "Well pretend I was trying to walk and I had on sneakers, would this help? What if I only had shoes and it was Tuesday?"

Meanwhile of the remaining:

• 1 person begins to walk around and declares it is impossible.
  
• 1 other person begins to walk around and declares that it has been done.
  
• 1 more person begins walking, decides walking in and of itself is pretty cool.

These 3 people have all found the completely correct and valid answer. They all keep walking and go out for Ice Cream and Beer.

Unfortunately the bar and ice cream shop is directly across the street from the auditorium. As these 3 are trying to eat sundaes and get tipsy they notice a rather annoying phenomenon. The 7 in the auditorium continuously yell out

"Can you do it? Can you match the footsteps?"

In between drinks the 3 take turns yelling back "I can't tell you until you are over here!" Yet the interruptions continue.

My previous post isn't meant to be a judgement of whether the entities are real, or if this can even be determined. I think that we agree somewhat that if you really want to know an answer or even try to look for one you have to investigate it.

There are plenty of people in the past and present I admire but I wouldn't take the King of the Junkie's(A.C.) or Pikachu Pokeman Runyon's advice on stock tips, much less a definitive view of the way we interact with the world.

I hope that if we(I) make a point of experiment and conclusion that then everyone can eat sundae's, while the yelling from across the street is reduced to a minimum.