BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

I think it's time for new magical systems

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Salamander
01:40 / 21.05.03
God is incomprehensible to Man,
There is no God but Man,
Man is incomprehensible to himself,
Why ask why?
Drink Bud dry.
 
 
--
02:31 / 21.05.03
H'mm, this thread has gotten some controversy, which I feel is a good thing.

I've noticed in the last year or so that my feelings towards magic have been schizophrenic, ie. sometimes I believe in certain things and other times I think it's all crap, depending on my moods. I actually don't really believe in gods. So-called "gods" I like to work with I usually see more as spirits that somehow got thought into existence. They only really have as much power over you as you let them.
 
 
—| x |—
02:40 / 21.05.03
"I think, fell [sic] and believe in a god that cannot be conceived by any human mind, and that's the proof that it exists."

Look, this reasoning is similar enough to St. Anselm's proof for the existence of God—it didn't work in the 11th century, why do you think we'll be convinced by it now?
 
 
--
02:46 / 21.05.03
Tzaddi, you obviously took my initial post on this thread a tad too seriously. I realize my wording may have been strong, but I'm really just sick of people on this board constantly carping on about Crowley and Mayan calendars and 2012 and what not. As I stated earlier I greatly admire Crowley, though more for his personality then his magical texts (I do acknowledge his importance in the reshaping of modern magic). Still, I contradict myself often, and I think it's good to occasionaly tear down people/artists/writers you respect. Like what Phil Hine says, read De sade and then Dworkin.

And I never said fuck Grant Morrison, that was someone else, in fact I respect Morrison more then most other magicians, mainly because his comic got me interested in magic and he's said a lot of stuff I agree with. But at times he's come off as a guru wannabe (not so much anymore) with his whole magic utopia thing, and I'm not sure if that sits very well with me. However, I definetly say to fuck Dion Fortune, some of the things she's said in books are very anti-homosexual (ironically the first magic book I ever read was one of hers, "Psychic Self-Defense").

The very fact you call these people established icons makes me question them as I have no time for icons.

I don't recall ever asking what magic is, I could actually care less as, as you said, everyone has their own definition. I refuse to be clinical about certain emotions. I don't think there's a grand secret to magic either. Personally I'm not interested in astral planes or things of that sort, mainly as I don't have the patience for them and I've never gotten good results.

As for studying, I've read quite a few books on magic and, while not necesarily a scholar on the subject, I feel I'm well informed.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
12:52 / 21.05.03
Mohrandir:Why would you want to create a new pantheon?

Because it's fun! You can come up with gods and give them power, because they're a part of Atman, just like everything else. We can't actually comprehend "GOD", right, so we give it masks and new personalities in an effort to reach it. In some ways, by creating our own masks instead of using old ones, we could become more in touch with it then other people, because we're actually reaching for it ourselves. But the ancients might have been on to something, so I integrate their belief structure into my own. I use what works, and don't use what doesn't.
 
 
_Boboss
13:03 / 21.05.03
seems to be a problem here with people juggling chaoist orthodoxy w. postmodernist preferences. if innovating a pantheon for oneself, you better be sure it has a full and consistent theory of human psychology worked in their somewhere, otherwise it's sure to bite you on the ass. if this takes you less than a lifetime to do properly, that'll be a surprise. a more achievable feat might be taking a new readymade set of gods and finding how successfully you can apply them to your works, like the king's Fourth World characters. i've been trying for ages to get the Kirbylla going just right, but having trouble finding a correspondence for 'Boom Tube'.

stick KHAOS 14 into google to find the arguments here phrased a bit more thoughtfully and make the crowleyites hereabouts update their 93 madness.
 
 
Rev. Wright
13:24 / 21.05.03
N:- Reading the linked information would allow Spyder to engage the perspective I am presenting for hirself. Dismissal of this merely exposes arrogance and overt self-involvement.

Rudolph Steiner talks historically of the mainstream commercial use of deities by the general public in their religious practices. Opium for the masses. He presents a perspective where the mystery schools were set apart from this level of spiritual engagement.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
21:01 / 21.05.03
Sorry, crazy.
I'm reading the ego death thing right now. It's utterly fascinating...
The other one I haven't looked at yet. Sorry bout that, I've been busy, and it looks long.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
21:57 / 21.05.03
Sorry Will I was just being hostile. The ego-death one is interesting. But I have now read a lot of the parscience pages. I'm afraid I just don't like his writing.

On a board like this I don't think it is entirely fair to expect that everyone will read large articles that you link to.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:42 / 22.05.03
Gypsy, gods ARE ideas. There's no difference between them, except that you give gods more power then normal ideas. And that's all. I'm an idea, and so are you, so you could become someone's god. We're really talking about the same thing,

You seem very sure of that. I think this is an overly simplistic way of looking at a fairly complex process. Yes, Gods are essentially ideas, in the same way that you're an idea. But the point I'm trying to make is that - for something to function as a GOD (as opposed to a servitor or egregore) it has to have somehow become significantly 'more' than the imaginary product of the magician or group of magicians who thought of it. I think that the process by which 'ideas' can accumulate this power, has to take place over a period of time greatly in excess of a single magicians lifespan.

the difference is just that you only want to use gods that other people associate with, and not have to find your own. And I think that's great, as long as it works for you.

No, I don't "just want to use gods that other people associate with" and not want to find my own. Again, that is not what I'm saying in any sense. I have a prolific enough imagination to come up with a million fictional pantheons of potential Gods every five minutes. However, I wouldn't presume that those Gods would automatically have the same levels of accrued power as some of the older entities who have been self aware and trafficking with humans for thousands of years. My experiences of working closely with Gods tells me otherwise - which is all I'm trying to express.

If I were to create, say: El Travesti - the masked wrestler god of gender swap. El Travesti would function with a degree of power and self awareness. If I were to work with El Travesti every Saturday night for a year, then s/he would become a fairly powerful entity with a strongly defined personality and I'd probably start to have experiences that suggest El Travesti has some form of 'objective existence'. If an entire culture were to work with El Travesti over a period of a thousand years or more, El Travesti would function as a GOD.

I would say that Magicians primarily work with older Gods, and learn how to negotiate, appease, and work around the various idiosyncrasies that many of these Gods tend to manifest, simply because these entities have a level of Power that can't be artificially simulated in the magicians 'laboratory'. This power has accumulated over a long period of time - therefore an entity of this calibre can't be 'manufactured' like a servitor spirit or familiar. I think that it's a question of time and logistics that separates a servitor from an egregore, and an egregore from a God.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:59 / 22.05.03
but having trouble finding a correspondence for 'Boom Tube'.

The Voltigeurs. The Kirbyallistic correspondence for Boom Tube would probably be the formula of the Voltigeurs - which are the 'leapers' allowing you to jump between Sephiroth on the reverse side of the Tree of Life, according to Kenneth Grant and Bertiaux. They're symbolised by frogs and toads, and by extension have an association to Hecate. Grant Morrison mentions them in The Invisibles when John a Dreams finds the discarded time suit.
 
 
_Boboss
10:26 / 22.05.03
fucking brilliant. Thanks Very Much
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
12:38 / 22.05.03
Sorry Gypsy, that post was more arrogant then I meant it to be. I agree with everything you’re saying, really. I just want to take it to the next level. Some one had to come up with Shiva and Odin and Fu-Hsing, why shouldn’t it be us?
Again, this is going to come off as really arrogant, but I think it would be really cool if a thousand years from now I’m dead and forgotten, but millions of people worship the gods I created. So yeah, I know that any deity I create isn’t going to be as powerful as a well established goddess like Kali, but well after my life time they could become the most powerful pantheon ever!!

So what do you think?
 
 
Rev. Wright
17:00 / 22.05.03
On a board like this don't think it is entirely fair to expect that everyone will read large articles that you link to.

I could say soo much, but then that may go beyond an expected syntax count. Let me just say that something being called 'too wordy' is akin to 'ooh, thats a bit too deep'.

To make oneself failsafe from pitfalls in working with the sacred arts, here are some ways of protection:

1) Establish a benevolent Deity-figure to relate to inwardly.
2) Clear your psyche of any psychological “unfinished business” that could cause your ego to be needy for power or feeling special.
3) Tie your practices to disciplines that bring out the best in you and hold you steady in transformational work.
4) Be loving, industrious and hard-working, willing to study and to do your own inner work.
5) Stay in good physical health.
 
 
—| x |—
19:22 / 22.05.03
"I could say soo much, but then that may go beyond an expected syntax count. Let me just say that something being called 'too wordy' is akin to 'ooh, thats a bit too deep'."

I think this might be my problem--esp. in the context of this thread. I mean, I wrote a long piece, yes, but no one seems to have anything to say about it.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
22:31 / 22.05.03
No Its not that its too wordy. When you link to an article outside the board you are for starters not the one who wrote it. So even though I respect your contributions and writing that gives me no reason to go read a large piece by someone who's writing I don't respect. Secondly if you are assuming that people should read the outside material as background to the thread and refuse to converse without the background material being read then you are in a way highjacking the thread, changing its goals and meanings.

Thats why I don't think it is entirely fair to expect that everyone will read large articles that you link to.

eZ: I think this might be my problem--esp. in the context of this thread. I mean, I wrote a long piece, yes, but no one seems to have anything to say about it

Naw, I read it, and liked it. I think why no one commented on it is because everyone is too interested in continuing hostilities.
 
 
Seth
22:54 / 22.05.03
Disagreements aren't hostilities. People on this thread have differences of opinion and emphases. That's a good thing.
 
 
—| x |—
23:00 / 22.05.03
“… everyone is too interested in continuing hostilities.”

Aye—the scurvy dogs!

“Disagreements aren't hostilities. People on this thread have differences of opinion and emphases. That's a good thing.”

True, but there did seem to be a slight flair-up of hostility as opposed to the mere stating of difference of opinion. And while I am currently engaged in another thread where I am supporting the position that emotion can play an important role in arguing for or presenting a position, it seems to me that we were at risk (and perhaps still are) of collapsing the forwarding of our positions and views into mere bickering and hostility. It is certainly in part because of the sensitive nature of the topic at hand!
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:25 / 23.05.03
I mean, I wrote a long piece, yes, but no one seems to have anything to say about it.

I do have things to say about it, but there's so much there that it's a bit daunting to try and tackle a response in one go. I'll respond in sections.

It’s my understanding that each magician must face the Abyss alone, without aid, and stripped of all that was believed.

absolutely

I’m not willing to buy into an actual separation between my being and the source of that voice. Put differently, I have difficulties believing in this “objective” nature that you attribute to divinities.

Well yeah, but I've found that making this subjective/objective distinction is academic at best. In my own experience, I've found that the 'results', for want of a better word, are far more effective when you deliberately circumvent this problem.

For example, even if you subscribe to a psychological model where the voices of the Gods are actually a communication with some aspect of the deep mind/collective unconscious/whatever - it follows that this communication will be more sucessful once your conscious mind gets out of the way and allows the process to take place.

This can be difficult, but one very effective method of accomplishing it is to fully convince yourself of the objective reality of your Gods. I think that approaching entity work, even from this psychological model requires a prolonged suspension of disbelief that is pretty much indistinguishable from a full on belief in their objective existance.
 
 
Rev. Wright
09:40 / 23.05.03
Secondly if you are assuming that people should read the outside material as background to the thread and refuse to converse without the background material being read then you are in a way highjacking the thread, changing its goals and meanings.

The presentation of material or opinions based on the work and musings of others is a familiar and formal discourse, especially considering the nature of the dismissal of previous magick practitioners from the initial post on this thread. The polemic was started on a personal note and thus I present a return by quoting a challenging author and a position of denial of deities. Or should I put it FUCK ALL GOD(DESSES) and refuse to engage the act of creating ones own ego gratifying thought forms to comfort ones insecurities.

Regarding the act of reading material that presents other opinions and perspectives, why rewrite something? There are many threads on this forum that contain discussions about the same topics, this cyclic phoenomenom is unfortunately a reality of internet based interaction, thus later discussions are less passionate and engaging. At times I rely on linking associated material instead of summerising, connecting to the source, especially if one is presenting an opinion that may not be of ones own making of belief.
 
 
--
13:20 / 23.05.03

Or should I put it FUCK ALL GOD(DESSES) and refuse to engage the act of creating ones own ego gratifying thought forms to comfort ones insecurities.

You're probably talking about me here, but I wouldn't call my "penguin god" a thought form to comfort my insecurities. I just found that whole thing amusing and it gives me a laugh. Had I created a "god" to fuck me, then maybe that statement would have been more true.

However, I won't deny that I am insecure, but I've decided to accept my insecurities. When I first got into magic I assumed that to be a magician meant being flawless, getting rid of all your flaws and insecurities. Recently I've come to realize that that was a foolish asumption and who wants to be flawless and perfect anyway? I imagine the world would be a boring place.

Some magicians spend years of training and practice, but frankly I just don't have the time for such luxuries, or even access to the right teachers. What appealed to me about Chaos Magic was the idea that it was results magic, one of the reasons why I gravitated towards it in the first place. I don't care about astral planes and trees of life and things of that sort. They're interesting to read about, but I have no real motivation to actually see them for myself. Some may call this either intellectual masturbation or lack of effort/motivation, but I really don't care. I mean, I've read tons of books on Vodou but am not tempted in the least to try it out myself, though that's mostly fear of scorpian loas.

That guy who wrote that Vodoun Gnostic Workbook, Micheal Bertriax (sic) said that if you couldn't get a magic system to work, make one of your own. So whenever I come across a magic technique I can't quite accomplish, I try to find an alternate way of doing it. The reason why I haven't got sigils to work is probably because I'm using someone else's system (either that or my flawless memory never allows me to forget what I've done). I should try to find my own way of doing them.

It probably says a lot about me when my favorite book on crossdressing is Charles Anders' "The Lazy Crossdresser".
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
16:16 / 23.05.03
Speaking of voodoo loas and chaos magic, I've been thinking that it might be interesting to try to integrate that stuff into my own personal magical paradigm. Anyone (and I'm talking mainly to Crazy boy, as (s)he seems to have an immense wealth of information on bizarre stuff) have anything really could they could tell me about? Magical systems are, after all, what this thread is about.
 
 
--
19:24 / 23.05.03
Back to Saint Dogbert for a sec... I think Saint Dogbert does have some power because, well, lots of people know who Dogbert is, and I wonder how many people actually DID cut out that demons of stupidity panel and placed it on their computer.

It seems comics inspire my view on magic a lot. When I can't sleep I visualize Dream (from "The Sandman") spreading sleeping dust on me and that usually does the trick. And now that I think of it, Spider Jerusalem would make a great god of truth...
 
 
Who's your Tzaddi?
20:11 / 23.05.03
∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞≡∞

...(walks back into forum)

AH! I see nothing has changed. You know, this is a perfect representation of where Magicians go wrong...they relate everything to FUCKING. All I am saying is,if you can come up with a cohesive working magical system that out does the current one that is tried and tested for over 6000+ years in your short span here on earth and set up teachings that all can follow, then like a field of corn,I'm all EARS...

Nyuk.

Yep. Fuck the pantheon.
Doggie style.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
21:13 / 23.05.03
Take the looney tunes characters. How many people saw them as kids. believed in them completely and then forgot about them when they grew up?

Launched into the collective unconscious like a sigil placed every where by advertising, still able to pull the emotional strings of adults. A second and soon third generation exposed to them coming to their shrine on sabath morning. Eating food approved by them, cartoon character sugar cerials and snacks. Their iconic image the same as the fleshed out selves their myths shown... seen.

They have power.
 
 
perceval
02:55 / 24.05.03

Well...

As I recall, one of Crowley's main points was that the gods, angels, saints, etc, weren't literal, but collective subconcious representations of concepts and the Divine. So yeah, if Bugs Bunny has come to represent the trickster god more than the older versions, I don't think he'd object to the Wabbit being invoked.

Monroe has certainly come to fill the old Aphrodite archtype in modern culture. Of course, one could argue she was doing quite a bit of invoking, herself, every time she'd slip into that persona.

We've already had discussion in this forum on how Chris Claremont's muse that he tied to an ancient archtype has been being invoked, and sometimes visiting people uninvited. Why not? She, and the other fictional archtypes, have as rich a mythology as the Old Gods, are at least as much a part of the collective subconcious, and being our culture, are easier to relate to and understand. Sure, it's the old archtypes and concepts taking new form, and altering themselves a bit along the way, but they work just as well. For some, they work better. Others prefer sticking to the ancient forms.

Whatever works best for you, which happened to be Crowley's MAIN point.

E
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
23:42 / 24.05.03
Sypha, go to the "Gods we work with" post to see my comments on Dream of the Endless.

Percival, I have to agree with you on this. Didn't Crowley sort of pave the way for what has become chaos magic? Why are we arguing over whether or not Crowley would like what we're doing when we're doing exactly what he said?!?
 
 
perceval
07:14 / 25.05.03

Exactly. That's why Crowley never stuck to one system or pantheon, becuuse he thought they were all equally valid, and it was more about what you were trying for than any sort of dogma.

Crowley also had a sense of humor. He did title a chapter "Chapter 69: How to succeed, and how to suck eggs", after all...

E
 
 
illmatic
11:59 / 25.05.03
On the Crowley thing, and making new systems - I think Crowley was a chaos magician in the sense he was a great synthesist, brought together all the disparte parts of his experience to forge his own system.

Something I thought about earlier in this thread - you could just replicate Crowley's rituals and workings for the rest of your life, following his instructions to the letter, and you'd still be making up a new system, because Magick is all making these processes valid and real for you. Crowley said you've got to write your own qabalah, IIRC.Even something as supposedly "old fashioned" as the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentegram could still be a powerful tool, if you can apply to yourself and your life. It's all about making things real and valid and powerful - agents for your own gnosis.

Following the logic of what I just said, I suppose there's no real reason to invent anything new, Then again there's no reason why not to. False dichotomy. Bleh.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
12:27 / 25.05.03
So, everyone is actually a chaos magician, whether they know and admit it or not, and all those people clinging to the old systems, like the wiccans or whatever the neo-druids call themselves are still us? Cool... It doesn't really matter what side you're on. "We are all the same"... I'm feeling a sense of deja' vu.
 
 
--
16:12 / 25.05.03
I think Crowley would love to have the younger generation say "fuck him". That was pretty much his attitude to his older generation at that time. As I've said before of all the old "classic" magicians Crowley is definetly my favorite and I do respect a lot of things he's said, and I definetly agree he could have been one of the first Chaos magicians. He seemed dismissive of a lot of the superstitions people had regarding the occult. Actually, I think one of Crowley's biggest chaos magic statements was in his "Magick Without Tears" book where he says his magic weapons are pen, paper, his spirits are printers, publishers, etc. IE using modern tools to create magic (not unlike that P-Orridge interview in RESEARCH where P-Orridge says that modern magicians should use things like cassette tapes, video cameras, computers, etc.) With our generation I guess you could say the internet, MP3s, things of that nature.

On a sidenote, I was looking through Morrison's letter page for "The Filth" where he compared the 2D comic world he worked in to a seperate universe, and he claimed that Superman, while being fictional, is a greater entity then he is becuase not only do more people know who Superman is, but Superman has been around since before he was born and will probably be around after he dies. Very interesting...
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
16:20 / 25.05.03
Of course, I respect Morrison, but I have no respect for Supes. I mean, he's one of the most powerful beings in the universe, and he never does anything to change the status quo. So, who influences my life (directly) more? Kal-El or GM? It's an interesting question.
 
 
Rev. Wright
18:55 / 25.05.03
So, everyone is actually a chaos magician, whether they know and admit it or not, and all those people clinging to the old systems, like the wiccans or whatever the neo-druids call themselves are still us? Cool... It doesn't really matter what side you're on. "We are all the same"... I'm feeling a sense of deja' vu

BINGO, and thus my opening comment in my first post, creating new deities or exploring the temporary nature of such is not above or beyond Chaos Magick, but fundamental to the post-modern meta-narrative.

But what is beyond Chaos Magick/Sorcery, the final admittance to a complete lack of deities and full 'other than' conscious responsibility?
 
 
MrCoffeeBean
20:00 / 25.05.03
Spider Jerusalem. I have been working with him for almost a year. God of Truth, destroyer of lies. also helpful for writing and ranting... I could post more on that in a seperate thread sometime...
 
 
--
02:57 / 26.05.03
Do so, MrCoffeebean. Spider Jeruslaem is one of my new heroes, ever since I got into Transmet a few months ago.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply