Right on, Nick—this is an excellent thread that requires sincerity and seriousness in response. Good show old bean!
Let me start by saying that I’ve never considered myself a “Chaos Magician,” but I am very familiar with Carroll’s work, and somewhat familiar with the works of both his predecessor Spare and his contemporary Hine. If I had to place a label on myself wrt magic/k, then I would say that I am mostly a “situationalist magician.” My thoughts, ideas, notions, feelings, etc. & my acts, deeds, rituals, etc. are typically context dependent and more or less spontaneous (an example is my most recent post to the Luna thread).
“Going back to first principles for a moment, Chaos Magick takes belief as a tool - but it still involves belief. Chaos Magickians of yesteryear spent months obeying the logic of a single belief system, getting themselves into the mindset of [the particular system]. A solid part of the playfulness was a real and definite sense that when you selected a belief system, you didn't just appropriate its icons; you bought into it completely in order to do whatever Work you had in mind.”
Yes, this is certainly one of the exercises that Carroll recommends in Liber Null: roll a die, say, to determine which system we will follow for some preset amount of time. The idea, as you say, isn’t to appropriate and synthesize, but to act as if we believed entirely and only in that system at the exclusion of other systems. To me this is like the difference between going to classes or buying cassette tapes in order to learn a language and actually going to where the language is commonly spoken and immersing ourselves in the language, and thus, the culture that speaks the language. This, I feel, is an appropriate comparison-metaphor, esp. if we consider how important language is to most magic/kal systems. If we merely appropriate without immersion, then the images and names of the system we are borrowing from will not have the same psychological impact; thus, will not function the same. I read (although I can’t remember who or where) a (somewhat) academic essay on this, and the thesis was that without the culture and tradition driving the practitioner the magic/k is, as you say, “debased”: it looses the core identity of its meaning and with it, since magic/k is about the creation of meaning, it looses its power.
As far as belief goes, I generally feel along the lines of Rehmus, “M/magic(k) does not tolerate belief. Therefore, we must neither cater to popular belief nor seek to avoid offending it.” To me, there is value in immersing ourselves in a system, but at the same time, we are not bound by the “popular beliefs” of that system. With respect to the above paragraph, this means that the only real way to appropriate from other systems is to live inside that system until we can understand where it is weak and where it is strong: we can then, once we’ve “lived it,” be in a position where we are able to “see through” the popular belief wrt a specific system, and get at the core beliefs that drive the particular system.
Before I continue, I would like to introduce into the discussion a general three-fold categorization wrt to magic/k because I think it might be helpful for the context of this discussion. It seems to me that there a 3 main elements in our magic/kal existence: Explanation, Analysis, and Practice. Before we proceed with some rough definitions of these three elements, it might be important to note that this 3-fold categorization is meant more as a heuristic device than it is intended as reflecting an actual boundary—in life the three elements blur and bend into one and other.
Explanation involves our attempts to describe phenomena &/v our descriptions of various practices &/v traditions. This aspect of magic/k is where we might say, “I saw/felt/heard/tasted/smelt/thought such and such when I was doing x, y, and z,” “The group of people known as G appeared to say S regarding P,” “The Tradition T recommends the following practice…,” or etc..
Analysis involves our attempts to understand phenomena &/v various practices &/v traditions in a critical manner. This divides itself into two basic frames of reference: analysis from within and analysis from without. The side of magic/k that is analytical is undertaken either from a perspective that is coming from within the tradition &/v practice—we ourselves are actively involved with the tradition &/v practice v it is from a perspective that is not readily attached to the tradition &/v practice—we are not involved with the tradition &/v practice, but we are familiar with in some secondary manner.
Practice involves our interaction with phenomena &/v our active involvement with certain practices &/v tradition(s). There is similar division to practice as there is with analysis, but it is more subtle and involved: we can practice within a tradition or we can practice without a tradition. Practice within a tradition means performing acts and relating to phenomena through the filter, lens, paradigm, or etc. of a given set of ideas, notions, rituals, etc. that have been developed over time by a given group of people. Practice without a tradition means performing acts and relating to phenomena through a filter, lens, paradigm, or etc. that is not tied to any specific or decidable group of people.
Now, somewhere within the various degrees of interaction of these three categories we find a tentative two-fold division we can make. We can see our individual magic/kal pursuits as combining various degrees of absence and presence of Explanation, Analysis, and Practice in our Science (technical aspects and experiment) & Art (theory and works). Note that Science and Art are here also heuristic, and blend in actual life (besides, clearly technical aspects and theory go hand in hand like experiment and works).
“…the Magick FAQ talks about the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram solely in terms of cleansing the mind and setting your concentration. No mention is made at all of the possibility that it's a safety procedure.”
Really, the FAQ doesn’t mention it’s protective aspects!? I really ought to look at this FAQ sometime…I would also suggest that this ritual is an exercise, regular practice of which assists with developing and strengthening other important aspects of magic/kal practice such as visualization, willful intent, intonation, energy focus & direction, and etc.. Regular practice makes these “muscles” easier and easier to “flex.”
“Chaos Magick was supposed to combine inventiveness with 'technical excellence' - is that still possible if the history and context of the appropriated rituals are ignored? And if there's no danger from this ignorance, how can there be benefit in the workings?”
Well here I would ask, based on our categorization tool, what sort of “technical excellence” we are aiming for, because there is different ways of striving for excellence. As I have already mentioned above, I do feel there is a difference between immersion & synthesis, and appropriation & synthesis. I feel that, yes, in certain respects “excellence” is going to be, to some degree, sacrificed when the history and context of the appropriated material is ignored. My attempt at performing a Tibetan Burial Ritual is not going to have near the significance or impact it would have if I had participated in many previous to this one and was also immersed in the culture. However, my explanation of such a ritual, while external to such practices might still achieve “excellence” in some ways. As well, my external analysis, while lacking an immersed point of view, could also achieve “excellence” in some ways. But I suppose, that such an excellence might have to include some knowledge and understanding of the history and context of the material.
I think there is an excellent point in your second question. To bite on 1984: If ignorance is bliss, then freedom is slavery. What I mean here is that I tend to agree with the idea that if our lack of understanding is not a factor of danger in our magic/kal life, then neither can that lack accomplish much—if any—work. Our bliss is not the freedom we strive for, but merely new chains of obsession and neurosis for us to wrap ourselves up in.
“Is there anyone who feels able to talk about Traditional Magick, and who finds Chaos Magick - in its current or original form - simply a ragged mix of seventies music and pop-Zen?”
Hmm, I think there is something a little fishy with this question, because it seems to me that Chaos Magick, for all its focus on individual eclecticism and eccentricity, is itself simply another tradition. Well, not if we were Spare—I think he largely did his own thing and so it’s not easily labeled as “Chaos Magick.” Certainly it is a mix of something, but likely more than only “a ragged mix of seventies music and pop-Zen.” A read through Carroll’s works reveals more of a lineage than that (and quite a fantastic one if you believe his report on the matter!), and some of his ideas, concepts, and structures are valuable for our magic/kal pursuits. I guess here it will depend largely on separating the wheat from chaff, and then deciding how that wheat will be used or if it too will be left to rot!
“Or an out-dated rebellion focusing on Result over substance? I can't help but feel that the rebelliousness of CM has been replaced by a junk-food, fast Magick consumerism.”
I am empathetic to this in some ways. I think that Chaos Magick, being what it is, has likely played some role in the rise of, as you call it, “junk-food, fast Magick consumerism.” Has its rebelliousness been completely usurped by such magic/k? I doubt it. But I do think that there is a much more prevalent attitude that a wank over a sigil is a quick fix or that a servitor for x, y, and, z is an easy an efficient way to go. I tend to feel that certain forms or permutations of Chaos Magick, while more or less tied to what I would could “Traditional Chaos Magick,” are indeed devoid of tradition, culture, or roots, and simply hip-hop across world-lines and reality tunnels leaving their practitioners muddy footprints, dirty laundry, and psychic litter marking their ignorance, arrogance, and egotism. Garbage for the rest of us honest Joes and Joans to deal with!
The mistake for CM here, if this is its manifest attitude qua the individual practitioner, is that it grabs onto a post-modern view of the world, buys into the ego-driven idea of the importance and significance of the individual at the expense of the collective, and latches onto the notion that magic/k is connected to rebellion. These are aspects of CM’s poisonous fallout, OSISTM.
Such attitudes were noticed at least by Rehmus years and years ago, and he vehemently opposed such shallow magic/kal pursuits. Here is one of several possible quotes (from “The Magician’s Dictionary, Feral House, 1990):
“Magic in particular, we’ve all secretly fantasized, is a search for ‘powers’. We tend to imagine that it’s just the childlike fairytale belief in the ability to work miracles—as if ordinary reality isn’t miracle enough. Or, even worse, we act as though magic were just another toy that we confidently expect some giant cosmic Santa Claus to deliver once we have achieved celibate purity on some pinnacle of self hypnosis. This is all rather like a dog complacently assuming that you will give him the entire turkey if he merely sits on his hind legs & limps his forepaws.”
Next to sharing a similar stance with Rehmus, I also feel that if we get stuck in an attitude that magic/k is “all about” results and less about substance, then we are stuck at a very introductory, kindergarten style “grade” of magick, and will soon find that “magic/k doesn’t work for me,” or that it works more or less, but the “power” we tap from it by pursuing such ends is merely the ripple at the edge of the pond, and not the rock that creates the plethora of ripples. Magic/k is, to me, and somewhat echoing Rehmus, more about the meaning, value and significance that is created in interactions. This is esp. important if we frame the universe as a conversation—the exchange of information—amongst its parts. I talk a little about such a view here.
Magic/k might be construed as a rebellion, but it is a subtle and serious rebellion, and not some randy “fire bombs in the streets” style rebellion, like some permutations of Chaos Magick can easily become. The rebellion that a magician participates in is largely against hir self, OSISTM, and only marginally connected—by context and happenstance—to the culture that s/he might find hirself in.
“Is there anything to be said for Traditional Magick and its progress to a state of Enlightenment, or is all that matters sticking a thumb on the scales of fortune?
Yes, but we have to be more clear by what we mean by “Traditional Magic/k.” I feel that “sticking our thumbs on the [wheel] of fortune” is only a marginal and occasional aspect of magic/kal pursuits, or at least, ought to be if we are the type of magicians who are getting anywhere with our Science and Art. I also feel that striving for “enlightenment” (whatever that turns out to be) is an important and integral part of living a magic/kal life, but I also feel that enlightenment isn’t the end of magic/k, but also one of its marginal and occasional aspects. Magic/k, to me, is simply living. |
. I ‘d add that I don’t think this is any different from what Crowley or Macgregor Mathers did – they were simply building their own syntheses, out of their own experience.