Short conversation i had in another server

What a buncha bullshit lmao

"The sigil itself carries its meaning through the collective imagery of a population without the user magnifying the intention"

That's not a sigil, that's an archetype. It's literally the definition of an archetype. A concept that exists in the collective unconsciousness of a certain culture or society

all of this being in effect quite complicated and opaque is actually why studying even secular philosophy of semiotics and ontological roots of meaning is actually very useful in the context of occultism

because a sigil is not an egregore and an egregore is not an archetype, and neither is technically a sigil

YES

although, to make use of these categories, they are necessarily blended

in practice

that is what makes the delineation difficult

Agreed, each uses the unconsciousness or subconsciousness in a certain scope. Egregore = thoughtform sustained by a populace; archetype = certain concept or idea sustained by a populace; sigil = an image that represents an intention, concept, or idea

@chonkyfire this is the easiest way I think I can explain it: sigils are like miniature programs which, when ran, are stored in your subconscious "brain computer" and are being constantly ran at low levels

the top post is a good method of simple explanation

The more you do the ritual or the more powerful your ritual is or the stronger the intent, the better that intention can get engrained into your brain (physically, through neuroplasticity) and your conscious perception (via practical and abstraction application of the imagery or meaning)

I would say that the primary distinction between an egregore and an archetype per se is that an egregore is what people say it is, whereas archetypes are essentially unchanging in nature and change only in presentation, meaning an egregore can easily jump from archetype to archetype over time

based on the needs or wants of the community of users