Koetting's Circle of Solomon

Yeah I am far more militant with my defenses now that I work 8 hrs a day and attend school for 8 hrs a day. I lose sleep to keep up with my occult practices, so I have very little patience.

Sounds like the spirit wasn’t malevolent just a bit discombobulated.

Nope.

Koetting's new circle isn't Solomonic. Clearly based upon it, but it is incomplete and too small. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you because there'd be no point. But I would hope that balg can at least be honest to its customers and not straight up lie about their products.

And, pray tell, what is the source of this true and correct and complete “Solomonic” circle?

Your circlemight work for MODERN evocation, but it wouldn't stand a chance in actual Solomonic magic.

Lol, and the Ars Goetia gives you the blueprint for “actual Solomonic magic”? The same Goetia that cribbed its conjurations virtually word-for-word from the Heptameron, which, by the way, employs a different circle.[/quote]

Don’t be an idiot, a true solomonic circle is a circle of the solomonic tradition.

The circle of the Heptameron is a solomonic circle.

Also, quote verbatim every conjuration from the heptameron and every conjuration from the Lesser key of solomon. Remember, the heptameron is for evoking the spirits of the Air.

If they do not match perfectly then you are wrong, simple as that.

And why must it be just the goetia? EA claims this is THE solomonic circle, so why can’t we compare with other solomonic texts and the circles listed in them?

Not a single comment was delivered as a “legitimate concern”.

He was being a smug, passive-aggressive cunt, and I called him out on it. Just like I’ve called you out on it - and I’m going to keep doing it.

I refuse to let anyone come into my house and start claiming we’re “liars” and “just want money” and “our tools don’t work” - especially when he’s targeting someone who is as dedicated to magick truth and integrity as E.A.

Exactly.

Religion: a system of belief or dogma.

You’re stuck in an obsolete paradigm where if a T is not crossed, an I is not dotted, or if a design modification has occurred - SUDDENLY THE FORCES OF MAGICK DON’T WORK!

[quote=“Euoi”]How are taking out the divine names, copying Michal Ford’s ouroboric design, then making it smaller “beneficial modifications”? And how does changing it make it a Solomonic circle?
The divine names are also integral to the circle. Perhaps if you would actually study Solomonic evocation you’d know that the divine names surrounding the circle represent the divine hosts surrounding the Abrahamic deity. The magician obtains his authority to summon in the spirits and so he mirrors God, with the circle representing the universe. My point isn’t that it won’t work. My point is that’s not a Solomonic circle and is useless in Solomonic circle. My issue is its misrepresentation. It would be fine in modern evocation, such as evoking eternity, but a true Solomonic magician wouldn’t even consider purchasing it for grimoire evocation.[/quote]

“True Solomonic magician”

Translation: religious fundamentalist.

I agree that the Circle is not 100% representative of the original design of the Circle of Solomon - this does not mean you cannot perform Solomonic magick successfully!

Must we still harvest blood from the period of a virgin girl? And use genuine calf skin for our sigils, slaughtered at the right astrological timing?

Also, I see you’ve relaxed your offensive and slanderous attacks on us. You’ll find in the future that if you have a question, concern, or constructive criticism - just being polite will get you much further, than hurling veiled insults.

We never said we promised to make a “classic” Circle of Solomon.

I said we received a multitude of requests for the Circle in general - and the reception of our Solomonic Circle has been greater than even the Universal Circle.

As always, we are going to provide our clients what we consider to be optimal for increasing personal power. We’re very clear in our more experimental and progressive attitude toward magick, as opposed to the “fundamentalist traditionalists” who cling to books written by men in medieval times.[/quote]

If this forum isn’t for money, why do you need to sign up to even view it?

Trappings? It isn’t trapping it’s the core of the damn system, if i use a Gun should i expect it to work without a bullet? Sure you can hit someone with it as a blunt object, or even pick up something more simple meant to be simple.

However this solomonic circle is akin to cutting off 70% of the gun and never using bullets and expecting it and implying it would work better then a gun with bullets.

How is it an outdated paradigm? DO NOT SYMBOLS AND IAMGES ACTIVATE THE SLEEPING POWERS OF THE MAGICIAN? Is it out dated to use symbolism now? To use tradition?

And t isnt “the powers of magic” you are working with.

It’s the powers of your own being through the ABRAHAMIC SOLOMONIC lens. So yes it Will not work unless done correctly.

Tell me, have you ever physically evoked ANY spirit using the solomonic method? Not visibly, i mean literally physical. To the point of someone who was not involves in the ritual could see and interact with the spirit? The way you act i’m gonna guess no.

And what is wrong with religion?

Why are you using the term “fundamentalist” as an insult? You are clearly a fundamentalist to EA’s systems.

It wouldn’t be solomonic magic then, it would be MODERN.

“Must we still harvest blood from the period of a virgin girl? And use genuine calf skin for our sigils, slaughtered at the right astrological timing?” Spoken like a true uninitiated pleb.

You know, what was considered legit science a few hundred years ago can still be considered legit science today unless disproved right?

Why is the art and science called Magic any different? What? Because you don’t have the time or dedication needed to work with their systems and texts in the proper light and framework?

Did you start your look into spirituality with lavey satanism by any chance?

As this circle is of the luciferian mindset. Taking divine and angelic given material and using and modifying it however you like, with no divine command to do so.

I agree with many of your points, Huehue, but there are also many points where my views of the Solomonic tradition and Goetia tradition contradict yours. I’ll point it out.

The specific circle and the specific godnames are not the core of the system. The names change and the circles change, but that doesn’t make it any less Solomonic. And going about the Ars Goetia method in a different way than is specified in the grimoire, doesn’t automatically mean that you get a different internal intitiation into the system, than you would if you went about it differently (in my view it depends on exactly what you alter and in what way you alter it). Such an argument needs scientific testing, and I haven’t seen anyone do this yet. There are lots of opposing opinions on this matter, and little to no proof.
The core of the Solomonic tradition is more complex than just a certain set of names and a specific circle.

Keeping to tradition and arguing about what produces the best results are two different things. Just as you can bet that there are many magicians out there who claim that going about magic traditionally provide better results and effects, there are equally number of nontraditionalists who claim the opposite. I personally don’t believe that following a grimoire to the letter automatically means better results with more spectacular effects, and in my research of traditional magics and the grimoires tell me that there is NO One way that is better. The author of a grimoire may think so, but I don’t view the authors of the grimoires as master magicians anyway.

That’s simply not true. Lots of experiences on many forums and blogs points to this statement as being wrong. Going about a grimoire differently than is specified in the grimoire doesn’t mean that it wont work. This is wrong according to most magicians experiences, myself included.

Urgh! I doubt very much that any of you two have done this.
I hate it when people argue against another magicians methods by using the physical manifestation card…

Modern in the same way that The Lemegeton was modern to the Grimoire of Pope Honorius, and in the way the Grand Grimoire was modern to the Hygromantia? Please, the point where it stops being solomonic isn’t as easily identified as you seem to want it to be. And just because it’s modern doesn’t make it any less Solomonic. It sounds as like you think all the Renaissance grimoires in the Solomonic tradition agree on every point, and looks alike all the time. That is simply not the case. There is a certain backbone that puts it into the same tradition, but that backbone is a lot more komplex than what you seem to think. Or that’s my view anyway.

You mean the same way that all the Solomonic grimoires that have different circle designs are different from eachother? Just because it’s a different circle and have different names of power doesn’t make it any less a part of the Solomonic tradition. And what proof do you have that the Solomonic circle was given by angels? Where does that claim come from? Getting “divine command” to be allowed to alter the specifics are not necessary for it to remain Solomonic.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am not trying to argue that Koetting is a Solomonic magician. I am simply arguing against some of your points.
And you did come with some good points that I agree with, except for those I have just responded to.

[quote=“Attis, post:44, topic:2380”]I agree with many of your points, Huehue, but there are also many points where my views of the Solomonic tradition and Goetia tradition contradict yours. I’ll point it out.

The specific circle and the specific godnames are not the core of the system. The names change and the circles change, but that doesn’t make it any less Solomonic. And going about the Ars Goetia method in a different way than is specified in the grimoire, doesn’t automatically mean that you get a different internal intitiation into the system, than you would if you went about it differently (in my view it depends on exactly what you alter and in what way you alter it). Such an argument needs scientific testing, and I haven’t seen anyone do this yet. There are lots of opposing opinions on this matter, and little to no proof.
The core of the Solomonic tradition is more complex than just a certain set of names and a specific circle.

Keeping to tradition and arguing about what produces the best results are two different things. Just as you can bet that there are many magicians out there who claim that going about magic traditionally provide better results and effects, there are equally number of nontraditionalists who claim the opposite. I personally don’t believe that following a grimoire to the letter automatically means better results with more spectacular effects, and in my research of traditional magics and the grimoires tell me that there is NO One way that is better. The author of a grimoire may think so, but I don’t view the authors of the grimoires as master magicians anyway.

That’s simply not true. Lots of experiences on many forums and blogs points to this statement as being wrong. Going about a grimoire differently than is specified in the grimoire doesn’t mean that it wont work. This is wrong according to most magicians experiences, myself included.

Urgh! I doubt very much that any of you two have done this.
I hate it when people argue against another magicians methods by using the physical manifestation card…

Modern in the same way that The Lemegeton was modern to the Grimoire of Pope Honorius, and in the way the Grand Grimoire was modern to the Hygromantia? Please, the point where it stops being solomonic isn’t as easily identified as you seem to want it to be. And just because it’s modern doesn’t make it any less Solomonic. It sounds as like you think all the Renaissance grimoires in the Solomonic tradition agree on every point, and looks alike all the time. That is simply not the case. There is a certain backbone that puts it into the same tradition, but that backbone is a lot more komplex than what you seem to think. Or that’s my view anyway.

You mean the same way that all the Solomonic grimoires that have different circle designs are different from eachother? Just because it’s a different circle and have different names of power doesn’t make it any less a part of the Solomonic tradition. And what proof do you have that the Solomonic circle was given by angels? Where does that claim come from? Getting “divine command” to be allowed to alter the specifics are not necessary for it to remain Solomonic.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am not trying to argue that Koetting is a Solomonic magician. I am simply arguing against some of your points.
And you did come with some good points that I agree with, except for those I have just responded to.[/quote]

The power of speech, the written language and divine names are a core part of kabbalistic practice, whenever a solomonic magician had the chance to use kabbalah they did.

Infact knowing the names shows divine providence by knowing the mysteries of the names.

I am not talking about just the goetia i am talking about the whole solomonic tradition.

I know of no solomonic grimoires which do not apply barbarous tongue of any sort.

If one is chopping off divine names in the circle that means they do nof recognize those names as having authority.

If you are chopping off them in the circle, why do we assume the conjuration keeps the names?

Without the divine names and ultimately divine providence the system falls, simple as that.

And it does change a bit, if one is initiated by the name “Adonai molech” it is a bit different than being initiated by the name “elohim gibbor”.

Literally all systems of hebrew magic are based on God names.

And i have personally tested as many others have. Without divine providence you won’t get far.

No one is arguing that one method is better than the other. I am arguing that if someone is trying to go by the solomonic method, they shouldn’t use a butchered version of a circle.

Again. Activating the powers of your being with symbols and images.

Hell consider chaos magic, they rip everything that doesn’t do this off the system.

And if you are going a different area in the solomonic method, usually people try to make up for it. Be with sacrifices, different rituals or symbols.

Physical manifestation is still a valid argument.

Here’s the thing. Koetting isn’t presenting an entire solomonic system of magic with his circle. He’s just throwing you a circle and claiming it will work in solomonic magic.

Again they link up via all referring to the same thing. By using the same languages, even in veiled form.

If i were to take koetting’s circle and replace alpha and omega with “kronos” and “zeus” would it still be solomonic then?

The fact is, it’s a modern circle with a modern design which is a modification of a circle which removes the majority of the solomonic cosmology which the circles usually represent and replacing it with nothing.

The general solomonic stance, is that you Are the Warlord of the host of the armies of YHVH. And through your knowing of the mysteries of creation and the most high you have created this microcosmic representation of thd macrocosm of which you are a reflection of the highest, and therefore have all authority over all of creation.

And you DO need to be allowed to alter, if you want to keep in line with the current of the will of the solomonic magicians. For results end, you need providence in the current of initiation before you can alter it.

Simple as that, ask any magician if you should have providence in a system before you randomly alter and remove parts.

Majority of times the answer shall remain the same.

Hopefully you understand my stance a bit better now.

If a person wages a character attack against E.A., I’m going to smash them.

Simple as that.

And if you had any dignity, you’d be defending him too.

Actually, we handle respectful clients extremely well.

But if a person comes into my forum, and calls E.A. a liar and a fraud, then they’ve made it personal, and no longer get my cordiality.

No, it’s not implied. We posted an entire video, and 7 color photos explicitly showing off the exact circle the way it is, so everyone can see.

There are no hidden implications, or secrets anywhere.

The Circle of Solomon absolutely is the most famous circle in the world. It’s beyond mainstream at this point.

Actually, we do.

There is not a single human being alive who is adhering to every single outdated and unnecessary protocol in ancient grimoires and paths they practice.

According to your non-logic, everyone is insulting everyone, then.

This is how I treat someone who calls E.A. a liar and a fraud.

If a person attacks my partner, they lose my courtesy and I no longer view them as a client, because they’ve made it personal.

Pull your head out of your ass and recognize that everything we’ve said is in self-defense. Eoul initiated the aggression.

[quote=“Sukujin”]Just did a quick 3 card tarot reading:

Where this is going, the road it is on - “The Dull Man Preserves With Firmness”

shit, wonder what that is about.

lol[/quote]

Dude, you’re a huge cornball. Just stop.

OMG! Is E.A. asserting that magick is real, based on his own experience?

Owning a highly charged symbolic talismanic circle DOES immediately call to attention the spirits of association.

This is not a bold claim. It’s an experience empirically documented by tons of seasoned evocators.

According to all of the disclaimers on this site that Magic isn’t real, and is just for entertainment purposes, i’d believe he is infact asserting that magic isn’t real and is at best a bunch of mind games.

Either that or he doesn’t trust his own products and works of being able to give people results.

If a person wages a character attack against E.A., I’m going to smash them.

Simple as that.

And if you had any dignity, you’d be defending him too.[/quote]

First, this is not matter of dignity but of remaining professional and not be overhelmed by emotions.
I dont know if you are a magician of not, but in the case you practice magic, you should know that a magician has to remain calm and control his emotion whatever happens.
And if you’re not into magic, you should act as a professionnal either way which means accept criticisms without replying by throwing fire.

Secondly, can you please quote where Euoi (and not Eoul lol) insulted/attacked EA as you say he did ?
Because in his 1st post I just read again now and which make you come and act like a bully he just said it was not a true solomonic Circle. Nothing less, nothing more.

1 Like

[quote=“Timothy, post:46, topic:2380”]If a person wages a character attack against E.A., I’m going to smash them.

Simple as that.

And if you had any dignity, you’d be defending him too.[/quote]

you’re not smashing anyone but yourself with your constant aggressive bullying of anyone who criticizes you.
it’s pretty sad.

[quote=“Timothy, post:46, topic:2380”]If a person wages a character attack against E.A., I’m going to smash them.

Simple as that.

And if you had any dignity, you’d be defending him too.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with attacking Koetting. It’s a discussion and a disagreement, nothing else. You are trying to direct something towards Koetting that was actually intended towards your methods and your behaviour, it wasn’t about insulting anyones honour, or waging an attack on any of you. You really ought to change your views on critique and how you deal with it. Particularly since you are running a professional business.

Timothy, you are evading the arguments that are made against the choice of words in the advertisement, not Koetting personally, but the advertising tactics that was chosen. Seriously, does the American mentality really have to be about ‘attack on this and war on that’? We aren’t attacking Koetting here, we are having an argument against the way this item was advertised, and your behavior towards some of your customers, and lets face it, this is not the first time that you have acted out this way. You do it often, and it’s being pointed out in this thread.
This is a disagreement and an argument, it’s not an attack. Don’t think that this is some macho showdown of who can act up the hardest. This is simply a disagreement with suggestions to attempt to improve things. Some are angrily written, but you are the one who turned this into something personal, which it isn’t

And again, you evaded many of the points directed towards you, instead of answering them properly.

Maybe you were “overwhelmed by emotions”, but I never was. I remained logical and articulate the entire time. To me, adult language is acceptable in adult discussion.

If a person makes a personal attack against E.A., I no longer give them the courtesy of a polite veneer.

I will never apologize for putting a person in their place.

I don’t know if you’re a magician or not, but you should know that emotions are what drive results.

Then you must be blind and doing selective reading.

I assumed Koetting just wanted more money.

This is called passive aggression, and he did it inside the context of condemning the Circle.

The implication is that E.A. made a crap product just because he’s a profit-monger who has no regard for artistic integrity - which is the furthest thing from the truth.

But I would hope that balg can at least be honest to its customers and not straight up lie about their products.

Now he’s claiming that we are deceptive to customers, and lie to them.

This is called slander, and it’s illegal. If he did this on the radio, television, or newspaper, I could sue him for damages.

Maybe you don’t mind defamation of character, but I do.

No I didn’t.

I already addressed the concerns ad nauseam.

Criticism: A Circle of Solomon should be 6 feet.

My Response: Ours is about 5 feet 8 inches (if I remember correctly), not that it matters.

Criticism: It doesn’t have the outer ring of god names

My Response: It doesn’t need to be canon to get results. We consciously modified the circle.

Criticism: The hexagrams have colors.

My Response: We specifically colored the shapes to intensify the elemental representation.

Now that everyone is calling me a “bully” it’s clear that you’ve resorted to name-calling, which means you have nothing left.

No I didn’t.

I already addressed the concerns ad nauseam.

Criticism: A Circle of Solomon should be 6 feet.

My Response: Ours is about 5 feet 8 inches (if I remember correctly), not that it matters.

Criticism: It doesn’t have the outer ring of god names

My Response: It doesn’t need to be canon to get results. We consciously modified the circle.

Criticism: The hexagrams have colors.

My Response: We specifically colored the shapes to intensify the elemental representation.

Now that everyone is calling me a “bully” it’s clear that you’ve resorted to name-calling, which means you have nothing left.[/quote]

Do you really want me to quote all the times that you yourself has resorted to name-calling? Don’t act as if this is a behavior you aren’t at the very least equally guilty in as those here who have called you a bully.

And you for example avoided answering some good points of my later post. I’ll quote them for you if you need.

[quote=“Attis, post:27, topic:2380”][quote=“Timothy, post:25, topic:2380”]We never said we promised to make a “classic” Circle of Solomon.

I said we received a multitude of requests for the Circle in general.

As always, we are going to provide our clients what we consider to be optimal for increasing personal power. We’re very clear in our more experimental and progressive attitude toward magick, as opposed to the “fundamentalist traditionalists” who cling to books written by men in medieval times.[/quote]

You didn’t write “classic” but you wrote some of the advertisement as if it is implied. I’ll provide some quotes from the advertisement to show it:

““That being said, there are purists who’d rather have a beautiful Circle of Solomon in their temple, or ritual space, specifically for Qabalistic and angelic workings.””

You state here that this circle is designed for the “purists”, that means the traditionalists. Those that want what is traditional, not inventive and new. You didn’t make a purist circle of Solomon. You made a new and significantly altered version of the purists circle of Solomon.

““Take advantage of the most popular…circle in history””

But it isn’t the most popular circle in history. It’s a new circle that no one has seen before now. Missleading advertisement.

““It’s the most famous and respected magick circle in history””

Again, No, it isn’t. It’s very different from the circle you took inspiration from.

““Harness the magick forces of the Qabalah for Ascent””

If it’s supposed to harness the Qabalistic forces, then why are you arguing so much against having the qabalistic names of power within the circle? Calling the qabalistic names for “religious dogma”, when this “religious dogma” is clearly stated as being one of the purposes of your new circle.

““Tap into the Hermetic powers of the Hebrew gods to enhance the potency of your rituals””

Again, the same argument as I wrote just above. Why state here on the forum that you didn’t intend this circle to be filled with “religious dogma” from the qabalistic symbolism when you state the exact opposite in the advertisement? And you wrote “Hebrew gods” in plural, but you only provided one single Hebrew godname in the circle - Adonay. Alpha and Omega isn’t Hebrew, it’s Greek. Which again clearly states that your advertisement points towards an intention to provide the names of power within the snake itself, but you didn’t, and you argue against this “religious dogma” here on the forum. You also argue against using the power of the Hebrew names of power here on the forum, because you believe that your way is better, but in the advertisement quoted above you clearly state that these names increase the power of the ritual. Missleading advertisement, and self-contradicting argumentation.

““Most famous and respected magick circle””

No it’s not. This circle is not the most famous and respected magick circle. It’s a new magic circle loosely based on Mathers/Crowley’s version of the circle in Lemegeton. And even Mathers/Crowley’s circle was significantly more “accurate”, according to the historically popular circle in the Lemegeton, than this one is.

Not to say that this new circle isn’t beautiful and of a cheap price. It certainly is. I am surprised that you have more buying this circle than the Universal circle, but that is not to say that the purists are the ones who are buying, which is what you stated this circle was primarily made for.
But making exaggerated and sometimes missleading and incorrect advertisement isn’t necessary at all. It’s in my opinion doing this movement a disservice. Koetting’s material is more than able to stand on it’s feet, without making exaggerations. You have made a wonderful site and forum that gives spectacular services, and often at better prices than elsewhere, but the exaggerations and missleading statements are unecessary, and in my opinion unwanted. I understand that exaggerations is the norm in advertisement, but I think it should be left out when advertising on magical art.

But that’s just my opinion anyways. It’s not me who made this forum, but critisism is something any business should be thankful for, because it’s a sign that people care about what happens with this place.[/quote]

Huehue,

I enjoy these discussions about traditional magic, but how about we move this into personal messaging, or make a new thread for it, since a discussion of this subject quickly turns into a huge sidestep from the particular discussion this thread is about?

I wouldnt criticize something until Ive had it in my own hands and tested its functionality. The one benefit of this I see is perfect geometry, which is of importance to me in my work.

I do find the no return policy to be concerning. Its understandable that someone claiming it doesnt work can be chalked up to user error and ignorance, but what of dissatisfaction of the quality of the item itself, (which i doubt would happen), or receiving a damaged item?

No I didn’t.

I already addressed the concerns ad nauseam.

Criticism: A Circle of Solomon should be 6 feet.

My Response: Ours is about 5 feet 8 inches (if I remember correctly), not that it matters.

Criticism: It doesn’t have the outer ring of god names

My Response: It doesn’t need to be canon to get results. We consciously modified the circle.

Criticism: The hexagrams have colors.

My Response: We specifically colored the shapes to intensify the elemental representation.

Now that everyone is calling me a “bully” it’s clear that you’ve resorted to name-calling, which means you have nothing left.[/quote]

Your Response: Ours is about 5 feet 8 inches (if I remember correctly), not that it matters.

My criticism: it does indeed matter, 6 represents God’s unity, it also represents man. God reflected in man is being shown. But ok i understand being too lazy.

Your Response: It doesn’t need to be canon to get results. We consciously modified the circle.

My criticism: it being canon or not doesn’t matter. You are removing the divine names which represent the cosmology and the magicians authority and mastery and knowledge of it. To remove the divine names is to remove the magician’s providence.

To put it bluntly, you are removing the whole point of it being a Solomonic circle. Further, you aren’t even doing anything to make up for that fact. Basically neutering the magician without giving any benefit back.

Your Response: We specifically colored the shapes to intensify the elemental representation.

My criticism: that’s fine and understandable, but what order of the elements and why are you using it? As from what i see this is going Air>fire>water>earth.

The only way this makes sense is if you are referring to Kether>chokmah>binah>malkuth.

Why throw in that tibit of cosmology, while throwing away the magicians means of knowing, working, and having authority in these sephiroth?

Why throw in the correspondence if the magician, as far as the circle implies, knows nothing of what is being referred to?

Or perhaps you are implying fire is a reflection of air, and earth of Water. What does that matter if none of the other correspondences are made? If it is not ruled or considered a part of the magician?

I know of at least one who does. Is it worth it in terms of results? Well, he lives on a little island, has literal sacks of gold and diamonds, is very well respected outside the occult community. He also uses a rug circle, saying that it was his wife’s idea after years of having an apprentice draw it out in chalk.

I would expect that someone seeking a “Circle of Solomon” probably wants one that looks like the design in one of the Mathers books. Not to say that this one isn’t workable, but that it probably isn’t what people are seeking. I’ve looked for these before online, and very few people make them in 9’ format. This one doesn’t fit my expectations, since I would want one that matches the system, being 9’ wide and having all the names.

Holy shit!

I can’t remember who said this, but.it had something to do with all the names of gods and angels around the circle as a way to represent to the magician that they stand in the place of God. This gave me an idea for my circle, not Solomonic just a circle with something I have been working with. This is awesome! I am going to have to bite the bullet and start drawing things, but I am excited to try!

So whoever said that, thank you.

To fling my two-cents in: Timothy and I spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to best represent the Solomonic Circle in the best way for the most people. Once we had an idea about what we thought we’d want, we consulted with our textile experts, who helped us further refine our design ideas. We made dozens of adjustments, changes, and reconsiderations before landing on a design that would be visibly attractive, uncluttered, balanced, and representative of the powers invoked by the use of the Circle in ritual.

Why did I want to put this Circle out? Because a LOT of people asked for it, and a LOT of people are now voting for it by purchasing their Circles. I knew when we finalized the design that there would be traditionalists who would throw a fit about it… but I also knew that a much greater majority would love it, use it, and achieve amazing results with it.

Is it the “Real” Circle of Solomon? Yes. It’s every bit as real as the Circle given in the Goetia, which you must know isn’t the original, but is a copy of a copy. In fact, let’s just be honest and recognize that the historical Solomon had nothing to do with the various grimoires attributed to him. What is given in those texts is a magician’s take on the thing… which is different amongst the different original manuscripts anyways. Which one is real? The one that you’re using and getting results is what’s real. The jots and tittles are items of minor philosophical interest. What is of ultimate importance to me is whether or not something is usable. In magick, that is what makes it real. My Solomonic Circle is real because it works. If you really think that you won’t be able to succeed in an evocation because the design of the Circle isn’t exactly what some other magician just as flawed and as speculative as all of us thought it should be, then you’re bound up in ways that I can only pity. What counts for me - and for most people - are results. And, it would be absurd at this point to even try to assert that I don’t get results.

Why not use the traditional design? Mainly, because it’s always seemed absurdly superfluous. When I was still figuring out how to evoke, I must have made 10-15 different Solomonic Circles. Two or three of them were made “by the book.” The others, I’d experiment with, adding or removing elements and seeing what had the best effect. For me, the Circle that seemed to work best for me is very similar to the design I have now released as The Solomonic Circle.

Will it be less effective than the traditional design? Not in my opinion, from my experience… and that is the greatest guide that I have.

Do I hope to exchange goods and services for monetary reimbursement? Most definitely! But I never have and I never will do so at the cost of my own spiritual and artistic integrity.

What it comes down to is this: this Circle may be for you, or it maybe won’t be for you. The Universal Circle has been very well received by a lot of people. But, some people don’t dig it. That’s fine. Some people loved Ipsissimus, but can’t stomach Baneful Magick, and vice versa. Is that going to stop me from doing what I’m doing? Not even for a second.

If you don’t like it, that’s cool… you don’t have to buy it. But, for the hundreds or possibly in time the thousands of people who do like it, it’s now available at a fraction of the cost of any other professionally-made Circle out there.

1 Like

Every single instance where I directed attention at someone was in self-defense, or response to their original comments.

I feel completely justified in all my actions.

I’ve had 7 different people write to me multiple times. LOL

It’s unrealistic for you to expect me to answer every single thing everyone sends me.

You’re being very needy.

[quote=“Huehue”]Your Response: Ours is about 5 feet 8 inches (if I remember correctly), not that it matters.

My criticism: it does indeed matter, 6 represents God’s unity, it also represents man. God reflected in man is being shown. But ok i understand being too lazy.[/quote]

No. It does not matter. These are all symbols. They are not literal necessities.

The only true requirement is the correct state of mind and emotional intentions when performing.

Symbolically, you’re correct.

Metaphysically, you’re dead wrong.

If you think that, then you’re a materialist who believes he draws power from physical objects, rather than his own mind.

In other words, you’re about 100 years behind the curve of modern quantum science.

Sure, whatever you say. LOL

There is, in my estimation, no rational human being alive who actually observes every single tedious mandated requirement for the performance of magick according to ancient grimoires and pathworkings.

If that’s the case, then no one is adhering to the perfect doctrine, and not a single person is getting genuine results, according to your own definitions.

Thus, you contradict yourself.

Purists, perhaps.

But this is pure speculation and opinion. And between the two of us, I’m the only one who has statistical evidence.


Friends, foes, and neutral parties… this thread has grown redundant and I’ve addressed the few issues of debate several times now.

The productivity of the discussion is experiencing a diminishing return, and I can no longer justify investing my time into it at the expense of other important work I have.

If you continue talking to me, do not expect a reply. Not because I’m ignoring you, but because I have priorities.

Also, E.A. is here now to provide any direction or guidance to the thread, if he likes.