I know what my personal opinion is of those who 'summon' tv characters, film or book characters and similiar to their aid. (I have programmes like Buffy & Angel here in my mind although I've never seen them ) However I can kind of understand why it is done by a few. The Gods and various entities and deities that could be called forward are quiet, unknown to many, their character not all that well known, (unless it is your own personal God/dess) so therefore a well known character is more approachable in the mind of those doing it. For my point, I'll explain it using my favourite fiction character, Aragorn. Apart from his stunningly sexy appearance he has superb qualities, inner strength, is trustworthy, fights for what he believes in, fights for his friends, remains true to his friends, has the sense to understand fear and be afraid but still go forth and battle, is kind and caring but prepared to fight to the death. Very admirable qualities. A worthy person indeed to be on your side and both fight and look after you. But I know he is fiction (although I can dream )

Point is why do some people try to summon forth fictional characters? (For the sake of this arguement let's ignore the fact that many think our Gods are fiction, those of us who have relationships with them know different. Besides we don't watch them on a silver screen but interact with them anyway.) And why do a few of those who try it and claim it works well believe it really is their character come alive? If there is something that responds to their call what is it? A thought form, another entity in that guise, a figment of the imagination? What do you think? Can see you a need for people to summon fictional characters?

I remember a lecture I attended once on meditation. We had to visualize or create a entity or animal that doesn't exist in RL. So, In that respect, I think one can create a relationship with a fictional character in much the same way many create a relationship with a God or Goddess. It's a way of opening the mind to new experiences and the ability to intuitively know them. Some have spirit guides they contact in time of need rather than Gods or Goddess but to me, it's pretty much the same thing.

Edgar Casey comes to mind. The 'sleeping prophet' was able to contact entities (or channel them) and help with medical afflictions in people that were miles away.

*Dave holds head in hands* again.


Very sneaky Weatherwitch, you make the arrows but get someone else to fire them.
Now as you know it isn't like me to be outspoken but:

This seems to me to carry some very similar principles to the uban myths and Jedi legitimacy threads.
Yes of course, if such, fictional characters help individuals to realise their spiritual aims then fine, use them, it's a free world.
Personally I really don't see the point when there are so many real characters out there to choose from if that, as they say, "is your wont".

Weatherwitch uses Aragorn as a fine example, I too have had the occasional Tolkienesque moment but usually involving Arwen and Galadriel. (yes I must be a very greedy man)

Now, I've been reading that book since I was fourteen, I generally read it at least once per year so I must have read it towards twenty-five times, yes, I'm obviously an unashamed LOTR anorak and if anyone was to be seriously affected by that book then it should in theory be if anyone; me, but, and here's the rub, It's fiction folks, it isn't real. The moralities and principles are applicable to our lives yes, but the characters and events are fictional. Tolkien himself confirmed this until he was blue in the face. The tale was not even intended to represent any events in the same way that George Orwells Animal Farm did. LOTR is pure fiction. In my opinion one of the most inventive and original works of fiction ever written, but fiction nonetheless. (I refer to the book rather than the Peter Jacksons films being as watchable as they are but still only equivilent to one tenth of the content of the book)

The reference to LOTR reminds me of a conversation many years ago with my now ex (thankfully) mother-in-law regarding that very book. Being a devout fundamentalist "you know what", she was of the view that LOTR is in her words "demonic". Obviously a perfectly reasonable point of view you might say, in light of the fact that she had never read it and new next to nothing about it. I pointed out to her that it is in fact no more demonic than Winnie The Poo carrying as it does the same quantity of factual reality.

My point being, and I hope that I'm not labouring the point; It's fantasy.
Use it and other similar works if you so choose and if such works and associated fictional characters help you to find your way that can't be a bad thing. Personally I would rather at least attempt to base my beliefs at some level of significance to reality. That alone is sometimes no easy task, we are after all talking about spirituality and faith. I would still rather base my spirituality around something that cannot be proven or disproven, rather than upon something that is blatantly "fiction", that was never intended as anything else and that has never claimed to be otherwise. Surely we have enough unprovable area's without creating more of our own.

As for Buffy and Angel.....I rest my case....m'lud.

At least we now all have a good idea of Weatherwitch's taste in men, i.e. Hairy, slightly scruffy, kills his own food, is desended from the kings of Numenor and is heir to the throne of Gondor. (Not many of those around I'm afraid Weatherwitch)

Oooohh I really enjoyed that little ourburst.

Please feel completely free to disagree with my opinion on the subject and slap the back of my head accordingly.

Edited at 15.45 to include second quote.

My mother says my taste in men is the "rough and ready" look

Yeap, fine by me



I remembered on the old site someone (don't think they stayed long ) who'd 'invoked' Buffy, and Odin d'Avalon (who? ) said that some people there thought LOTR was real? err what? I'd not thought about the Jedi thingy actually, I forgot about that, (best thing too ). It's the cross over from fantasy to reality or the fact that they can't tell the difference. LOTR is the only example I could use, and thinking about it, it seems a funny subject for someone without a TV to bring up



Oh gods, but there are those dear little darlings who do this and believe in it. Given the qualities portrayed I understand why but wonder why they can't try real Gods and not fiction.

You obviously haven't come across this website then:

http://www.angelfire.com/rings/three/main.htm



I have an image of Herne in my head formed by Robin of Sherwood and The Dark is Rising series. No matter how hard I try this is the image that comes to me when working with Him, so maybe the impression left my TV and books is too deep to remove, or maybe that is how He is best expressed to my psyche??

Is it Aragorn the character, or the actor who plays him who WW has a thing for?

bb
Rhiannon

I have and I would rather accept JRR Tolkiens repeated protestations on the subject rather than those by people of an anorakish disposition far more advanced than my own.

There is a thing with Discordianism where you pick whoever and whatever fits the archetype of the gods the best to you. There are aparently quite a lot of people who use Bugs Bunny and Wyle Coyote as embodiments of the trickster god.

I'm not really that clued up on it myself, I just know the basic principles. Hope to have sometime tonight to actually putdown a sensible answer

Both I adored the book character and still like the character within the film. The actor was a fabulous bonus

On a personal note, Aragorn as in actor also stands for freedom and the breaking of old barriers and chains placed by my ex-husband. Which is why I have a HUGE poster of Aragorn in my front room. Because I can



erm, quite

He he Dave, nicely put!

Let me be upfont about this. Peronally speaking, I think its perfectly silly. That said.. Im not sure how much more silly it is than invoking a god. As I said in my post about the power of the mind, I think what we acutally do is find a way to tap into, our own power and the power or whatever it is out there, elemental etc etc that runs through the universe.

I dont doubt that those who invoke and have very private working relationships with their gods, beleive that they are working with a god. But, does that not mean that there are thousands of gods? Is it not more likely, that the elemental forces come to us in a variety of forms? Some we are more comfortable with and speak to us in a more personal way? And whatever "form" that takes.. be it.. Thor.. or Zeus.. or well whoever.. its all the same thing, we just put it into a form we can deal with and helps us tap into whatevers out there in a manner that works for us or our personalities? So.. if someone sees Aragon as the "form" of a god that they want the qualities of, then is it really any less valid?

*edited to say*

As for WW's taste in men.. Im with her!

Principle entirely understood.

So, to quote another of my possible candidates for deity visualisation; Sheryl Crow:
"If it Makes You Happy, It Can't be That Bad".
True or false?

Sticking with Aragorn as an example, I had a very clear visual image of the character twenty years before the films appeared. An image certainly not consciously based on any real person that I could pinpoint. I have a pencil drawing that I did something like 22 yrs ago as evidence of that visualisation. If we can create such visual images or our own, why would we need to use a stand-in. Maybe our imaginations are suffering slightly, being made lazy by the modern media of films, Television and the like to the point where we cannot create our own unique visualisations.

Weatherwitch.....Viggo Mortenson.

Or it could be that we just dont have the info they had in the past. To a certain extent, you could argue that the Gods of the past were in fact the "heros and villians" of the day. The images of their gods were all about, and permiated into their lives in the same way movies and books to today. IN the past, people could visualise and invoke gods as they saw them, becuause they did.. with temples and statues and stories told and shared. Not that different from filma and TV today really is it?

A damned good point.
I wonder where the ancient Greek sculptors gained their inspirations for Statues of for example Zeus.
I understood that human "models" were and often still are used for this purpose.
So a statue of Zeus in the National Museum of Greek Antiquities in Athens could well be based on Joe Bloggs, bricklayer and part time artists model.

wow Xalle

If a story is told often enough then we both hear it, see it, feel it and take part in it. I never met my great-grandparents but the stories told to me about them by my mother who was brought up by them, make me not just hear the stories but just follow them as visual tales in my mind. I suppose it also depends on how active your imagination is They have always played an a major part in my life, inspiring me along this path, my great-grandmother was the village wisewoman (not a witch though), every one went to her, and between them they kept the farm going too. They are ancestors of whom I am very proud

I'd not considered Discordianism fuzi, I know little about it, so that was a good point too

Whenever we summon any character - whether alive, dead, fictional or non-fictional it is the need of our imaginations that is creating the perception. I accept all that was said here but think that even our conceptions of the attributes of those around us are just that, our perceptions.



Does the summoning of a TV or film character differ that much from summoning any other image of our own perception. I see the point Dav is making but still think, one person's perception of Buffy isn't the same as the person sitting on my right or left in the same living room so one person's summoning would be of a different nature too, wouldn't it. Just as my perception of "Auntie Jane" is different than every other person she encounters. Its all in the mind no matter if its a TV image or not.

Can't help thinking we've digressed somewhat from the original thought.
I can understand and accept that visualisation from whatever source can be a valuable aid.

But this bit:
.......I can't accept, visualisation is one thing, replacement is entirely different.
Maybe I took that thought too literally.
I have to say that I've never heard of anyone actually using such a character not only as visualistion but also as a character in its own right.

If this does occurr then I would have to return to the basic fantasy versus reality discussion.

See you there then Sadly there do seem to be too many who do, I wish I could remember the site I found about this with some good examples

How about thought forms though? It is possible to create a thoughtform that can be seen and felt by others, I have heard about that. I has also across the concept in a few books, whereby you create a thoughtform that becomes 'real.' As in living entity as opposed to mental image

ok I am starting to confuse myself now, I'll be quiet

Yeah, there is even an urban myth surrounding Mr. Da Vinci's painting of the last supper.
Something about the person who posed for Jesus and who posed for Judas being the same person. Judas being several years on and the mans life had turned bad, giving him a completely different look (Characteristics that you can identify, trhat represent the symobology of what you are trying to capture and all that)

well the way I understand the gods (and believe its something I have been working at this week) is that they appear to people in the most accessible/comfortable/expected form and use a name or title that is understood or familiar to them. I know this isn't the way many see them but to me it explains why I work with Herne and not Cernunununosos which I can't spell and can barely say!

In that case I suppose a god might chose to show up looking like Sarah Michelle Gellar but then would anyone who can tell reallity from showbiz expect a god to look like that?

Kev

Not expect, just hope.

I'm confused.

yes, you knew that, but I'm working my brain into knots.


well, you know how we're all quite happy to accept that a Goddess or God can look completely different to different people, and still be the same being (depends on your beliefs, obviously)

well, has anyone ever had the experience of seeing a depiction almost scarily close to the way you see them.



very occasionally I encounter the God in a Green Man form (he's usually the chap with the antlers, and only at summers height have I ever seen him in another form)

well the thing is, just recently for the first time I saw a green man as I see him. not just a flat face, but olive green skinned with foliage lik a beard and hair, and covering his whole body but not face. and there were his young antlers, just peeking through the leaves.

and it really shook me to see him as I see him, if that makes sense.

I've never heard of anyone doing this before. I'm confused to why you would want to in the first place.Quite sad really,tragic is also another word that pops into my head. but then again too much coffee and lack of sleep does strange things to your mind.

Um, is it different from how our ancestors came up with representations of Gods? YES!

If you invoke Buffy, or Arragorn, or try to perform the Rite of AshKente in your living room in the hope of summoning a Death with a curry additiction and a fondness for cats you are, I'm not at all sorry to tell you, stupid. You aren't doing anything similar to finding a face for your god, you are demonstrating the limits of your mental capacity and stagnating your mind. You are also blurring the lines between faith and fantasy to a worrying degree. YOU KNOW IT'S FAKE! I can understand summoning Loki, or Odin, or Isis or Baron Samedi. It's totally different to try to make something you know is a figment of one or a committee of imaginations. That's not faith, it's childish.




Ooooh, I lost my temper there. Hope I can back it up, I'm a bit knackered today.

Well! Didn't know people actually did do this!
I must say the thought of summoning Spike to my room at night is a very tempting one but as I know that he is a fictional character played by an actor, I don't think I'll be trying it.
There have been good points made from the other side of the fence's viewpoint but for me, if I know it's pure fiction...then that's what it will always be. I could happily fantasise about it and dream about it but I hope I never get to the point where the line between fantasy and reality get that blurred .

I agree with a lot of what has been said, but also thought about the belief that some people have (myself not included, so I don't know much about it) the Gods/esses come and go as we have need of them. So many people feel we don't need a ... god anymore, but we do need a god of electricity, or of TV, or ... I don't know!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe the characteristics of those characters are important in people's lives today, and gods and godesses have been created to match those needs.

Not a deity but I'll scan that Aragorn drawing that I did twenty plus years ago and stick it in the Gallery. Considering the time gap from book to drawing to film the similarities between drawing and film character are a little uncanny. (Though I suspect that the combination of Tolkiens powers of description along with Peter Jacksons and my own reading of the character are the only real cause) Maybe you should comsider joining SMD's Cave Gang behind the velvet curtain. How many names are there for our two main deities, hundreds I should think throughout europe and the rest of the world where similar pagan concepts exist. (Another eason why I can't see the need for further substitution)
Name choice is obviously a none issue to me. Visualisation, whilst I accept that it can have it's merits, I personally see no real need for it, I can't ever think of an occasion where I have visualised a deity as, for example a book, TV or film character, they always appear as completetly unique as far as I can tell. Obviously there might be some sub-conscious visualisation occurring but I really couldn't imagine Loki as Bugs Bunny. Maybe I have a few to many unknown faces running around inside my head. To be blunt...absolutely!! I think therefore I am ????
Well we havn't had a good blow-out for a while.
Incidentally.... which could easily lead us into one of my favourite mind boggling discussions, e.i. could your blue be my green etc.? It's based around the way that our brains interprate the data, so how do we know that our brains all "see" the same thing?
PS: I couldn't resist it, see my blog..."Brain Interpretetion".

The thing is that a TV/film character etc is very one-dimensional - we only see what the author intended us to see for the character. And because usually it's only one author, the characteristics of that character are "flat". I think what I'm trying to say is that with the God/dess's, they're rounded - the experience of generations and centuries of interaction and personal experiences having made them more so. They weren't suddenly "created" by one person with a set of characteristics and a personality mapped out for them, Their interaction with humans has given us much, much more to chew on, to consider and so on.

So while I think that I can see why some people would think that summoning Aragorn, in view of the qualities that that character has, it's a very, very pale shadow of the more complex and intricate characteristics of a deity which has been fully experienced and learned about over centuries.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that the comparison between a film/TV character and the "real deal" is like the difference between a real and imaginary friend.

(*scratches head* - not sure if ANY of that made sense!)

Wouldn't that be 'You think therefore I am?'

Kev

Or, I think therefore You are?

I have heard of this being possible, not sure how much you could explain it as a group hallucination though as all the instances of it involved a group of people doing the visualisation or at least being aware of it beforehand.

Yes, the technique's called inference referral I believe. Not exactly a "leading question", more a "leading statement".
I'm off to venerate Kate Bush, see you later.

I dunno...I'd like to conjure up Fox Mulder

Oh. You mean for like, pagan purposes? That could be arranged.



Dryad

Ah-ha, so the truth IS out there