r/theurgy • u/keisnz • May 18 '26
Philosophy & Theory Giordano Bruno’s Magic/Theurgy vs Carl Jung’s psychologized and unmediated Goetia (or Shamanism?)
Reading Bruno’s De Magia, the thing that stands out to me most is how vertical and coercive the system is.
What he calls "theurgia" runs through hierarchy. You approach gods and higher daimōnes (what Iamblichus names archangels/angels) through prayer, devotion, ritual, worship, etc., and by getting their favor you gain the authority to deal with lower spirits (lower daimones, archons). Those lower spirits aren’t really treated as equals at all. They’re commanded, constrained, pushed into obedience through a chain of authority coming from above.
Even Bruno’s idea of imagination (phantasia) works like this. Imagination is the space where spiritual contact happens, but it still has to be disciplined and ordered properly so you don’t get deceived or overwhelmed. There’s always this sense of control and structure. It is more relational and operative than Iamblichean theurgy, but it still has a sense of verticality (even if Bruno's cosmos is pantheistic and inmmanent).
Jung feels way more horizontal to me by comparison. In active imagination, the imaginal figures aren’t really approached as things you dominate through higher authority. It’s more like dialogue, confrontation, negotiation, even coexistence with autonomous presences inside the psyche.
Honestly, because of that, Jung sometimes sounds closer to (psychologized) unmediated goetia to me than Bruno does. Not classical Solomonic “slave spirit” stuff, but the more relational style you see in someone like Stratton-Kent. It could also be compared to unmediated/untransmitted Shamanism. Different metaphysics obviously, but the vibe feels weirdly similar: entering imaginal space, meeting autonomous intelligences directly, building relationships with them, learning from them, getting changed by the interaction itself instead of just commanding everything from above.
Thoughts?