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 >

Is our approach to magick outdated?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:33 / 05.11.03
Coo, I totally missed this the first time round, reading it was incredibly annoying but luckily about halfway down the page gypsy lantern said everything that I was going to. I suspect that chaos and the like are very modernist forms of magick, interpreted in just such a way. They betray a modernist aim, striving for perfection and all that jazz. Magick, being of a stubborn nature, has refused to fall to the shackles of postmodern twattishness, unlike witchcraft that has taken a beeline to the bottom of the grand canyon. Who on this earth is more violently postmodern than Fiona Horne?

There's something really weird going on with this thread. Why would you try to change the percieved nature of the thing when it's basically created by a load of people who don't know what they're doing anyway? I mean everything that anyone does is practically made up. Magick is perfectly individual and it's not all Victoriana, what you're probably discovering is that you're practising the wrong type and really want to branch out in to something else if you're that itchy to change the face of things.
 
 
cusm
14:07 / 05.11.03
The thing is Anna, there are two main approaches to magick that I see. One is the one you describe, the modernist chaos approach where form does not matter so long as you think it works. Its a self centered sort of approach, with magick being there for you to experience, but not necessarily share. The other, more traditional approach, is in seeking to find universal truths from the examination and observation of details. Really, the later is a scientific approach. Only, one which attempts to map natural phenomenon to personal experiences.

These two approaches are in many ways mutually exclusive, though I suspect (as with any good duality) that a truely novel approach is one which can incorporate both and explain why both are valid without contradicting either.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
16:18 / 05.11.03
Its a self centered sort of approach, with magick being there for you to experience, but not necessarily share.

Interesting argument cusm, but I disagree concerning CM, at least how I understand it. For me the emphasis is on practical technique - which can be shared - and people's experiences of using those techniques - also eminently shareable. As I understand it, a lot of early CM writing (i.e. Pete Carroll & Ray Sherwin) was aimed at making a distinction between techniques and the grand narratives (i.e. beliefs assumed to be 'Truths') entwined around them. When I first came across CM writings, I found that idea that what was important was (a) doing something practical (b) observing what (if anything) occurred, and (c) not having to accept other people's beliefs regarding explanations/theories which, whilst treated as 'Laws of Truths' were very often prejudices/dogmas. Having previously only read authors such as Mme Blavatsky or Dion Fortune (both heavy on Cosmic Laws & Esoteric Truths) I found CM to be a breath of fresh air.

How that fits in with the (arguably) modernist project for erecting universal truths I'm not sure.
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
23:45 / 05.11.03
It's all academic anyway - there's no point saying "We need a new paradigm", you have to come up with it! If it was easy or obvious, people would be doing it.

So perhaps we should start looking for things that we are doing or thinking about that don't fit in with either paradigm - Chaos or Trad - and try and divine where the zeitgiest is going?
 
 
Seth
05:56 / 06.11.03
Jesus wept over Jerusalem.

What we need is people who can look past all these definitions in order to communicate with those that don't use the same terms, people who can talk about their experiences without a lot polysyllabic abstract nouns, people who talk about their practise of techniques that work, people who care about each other enough to not add yet another layer of obfuscation to an already confused subject.

Looking for the shitegeist is only a dick-size contest.
 
 
Quantum
10:07 / 06.11.03
You mean *gasp* Magic and common sense can go hand in hand?!?
IMO magic is more to do with people than culture, and people haven't changed that much in the last fifty thousand years- still eating, fighting and fucking, looking for love and power, looking at the sky and the things around and trying to make sense of it all.
You think Astrology is outdated? Fine, make up a new system, choose your own path, but don't fall into the trap of thinking everyone else should follow you- that way lies religion, secret societies and things like the Mathers-Crowley war.

I have a great respect for old magic, and having looked into it pretty thoroughly I can tell you it's a mistake to dismiss it and a mistake to ignore parts of it. Modern magic is the child of the past- Chaos Magic owes a lot to NLP and Crowley, who rebelled against the Hermetic tradition who use a lot of Alchemy which borrows from Astrology which uses a lot of Graeco-Roman symbolism which descended from Egyptian pantheons and Ren-Hekau... etc. It's worth learning about systems you don't believe in to make sense of the ones you do, and if you're going to invent a new way you'd better know about the old ways first.

The zeitgeist is emphasising personal freedom, the validity of all paths, that we can make our own magical systems and that whatever works for you is cool. Many paths up the mountain is in, follow-the-leader is out.

My opinion in a nutshell- Why reinvent the wheel?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:19 / 06.11.03
there are two main approaches to magick that I see. One is the one you describe, the modernist chaos approach where form does not matter so long as you think it works. Its a self centered sort of approach, with magick being there for you to experience, but not necessarily share. The other, more traditional approach, is in seeking to find universal truths from the examination and observation of details.

That actually wasn't what I was trying to say at all. I mean, if you don't like the way that Chaos works than why practice Chaos at all? Why not branch out in to Voudun, a shamanic practice, witchcraft? Choices aren't limited. Why not attempt to incorporate those things in to your work and start to mix and match traditions until you have a working practice for you? You don't need to stick to one thing. Just because you know all the theory does not mean you have to follow it or accept it and it is not self centred to stray from tradition. The traditional approach is modernist because in the sense that it would seem to assume utter faith in a structure.

In addition these points resounded with me...

What we need is people who can look past all these definitions in order to communicate with those that don't use the same terms

It's worth learning about systems you don't believe in to make sense of the ones you do, and if you're going to invent a new way you'd better know about the old ways first.
 
 
cusm
12:21 / 06.11.03
Why not branch out in to Voudun, a shamanic practice, witchcraft?

Um, check, check, and check. I do get around, and you must be peeking at my journals

But anyway, what I was getting at was the attitude in CM that what works for you works, and that's all that matters. Its solipsist. There's the whole bit on how I'm in charge of creating my own reality and if I want to worship plushy bears to fuel my magick then that's cool if it works for me. The work is done for the individual, not for an audience to follow.

But yet, the incorporation of the traditional approach in the modernist paradigm is one of stripping away the dogma to examine the systems that lie beneath magick itself. It is actually a continuation of the work Crowley was doing for a good bit there, before he started punping out his own dogma. There's the science part, where common elements can be applied to the work of others. Deconstructing systems into base elements and relations, examining those relations to develop systems, then reapplying those systems with new variables to create magick out of whatever is handy.

Take this process and feed it the limitless data available to us today for compilation, doing research in a weekend on the net that once took Victorians decades to compile, and the zeitgeist begins to emerge. The work of the modern magickian is to look back upon those millenia of human workings and see at a glance what they all have in common, what we are doing and what we are trying to point to. So it is not that something new is emerging, so much as a clairification and demystifying of the old. Its meta-magick, meta-mythology. In accepting that nothing of the old was universally true, universal truths begin to appear from the pattern of data. Or at least, truths about what we've been doing all this time.

So I think if there is a new approach to magick to be had, its in widespread acceptance of basic fundamentals on why we are here and what our relationship to divinity is drawn from the collected body of work of centuries, seeing it as so obvious as to not be missed, then with little fanfare moving forward to getting on with our work. Through demystification, it simply becomes a part of the background, and the world moved on. If there's something whoely new we're to do, it'll be after we've fully digested the past so we can finally start looking forward again.
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
21:27 / 06.11.03
> Looking for the shitegeist is only a dick-size contest.

Seth, I'm detecting some anger there. Have I touched a raw nerve?
 
 
Perfect Tommy
01:00 / 07.11.03
You think Astrology is outdated? Fine, make up a new system, choose your own path, but don't fall into the trap of thinking everyone else should follow you- that way lies religion, secret societies and things like the Mathers-Crowley war...Many paths up the mountain is in, follow-the-leader is out.
—Quantum

There's a difference, though, between thinking everyone else should follow you, and converting your experiences in what has worked and what hasn't into a form that others can utilize, should they choose. The fewer people who need to reinvent the wheel the better. This is why I've suddenly realized that the sensation of "Golly, I really should be doing more magical work" that I had recently was baloney—the magical work I've been doing is merely cloaked in apparently 'modern' forms. The downside of that is that I haven't been getting to play with interesting tools, but the plus side is that I can talk to non-magicians about where my head's been and get them interested in the process instead of having them back away nervously. If my methods don't work for them, fine; but if they do, then I've helped someone's self-actualization and invisibly initiated a new Invisible without breathing a word of conspiracy comics or CM.
 
 
Seth
05:19 / 07.11.03
Seth, I'm detecting some anger there. Have I touched a raw nerve?

S'OK, pal. I'm very up and down at the moment. Any shittiness should be attributed to circumstances outside of the board. Sorry if I offended you, and I hope everyone reading the thread can see the points I was making and doesn't just think I was taking the piss for the sake of it.

I stand by what I said, though. There's too much time spent trying to predict trends when it's really not that important to go global or prophetic. There's enough to do just living one's own life, finding the tools and ontologies that work for you, and trying to effect the people around you. God knows, the people around me need enough TLC right now to keep me occupied for months.
 
 
Quantum
09:36 / 07.11.03
"the magical work I've been doing is merely cloaked in apparently 'modern' forms." Perfect Tommy
Hear hear, I'm growing increasingly convinced that one of the most important moments as a magician is realising that what you've been doing for ages is actually magic.
I suppose this is related to the decision to call yourself a magician (or whatever equivalent term you may be comfy with), the conscious definition of yourself as someone who performs magic.

So it is not that something new is emerging, so much as a clairification and demystifying of the old. Its meta-magick cusm
Absolutely! The work of the modern mage is largely to learn and compile, reflecting the nature of our times. We have the opportunity to take a step back and look at the various strands of magic, and weave them together into something of our own.
 
 
ideomanse
13:11 / 16.11.03
Please forgive me, as i have long lurked; held from posting by not having read all (or any) cited tomes, or familiarized myself with the important sounding names being used. Despite not being willing to penetrate the fog of surrounding "premodern" methods, I have attempted to go my own route trusting only in the notion that if this "magic" is innate to humans, then if one sheds all instructors, one can remain only honest in their work.

I whole-heartedly attest that the premodern lingo needs be cleaned up. Magic forums such as this provide the closest I have found to discussing the topics that concern me, yet I do not view my system as a magical practice, and as such it has been very difficult to offer feedback due to a lack of common reference. If my situation exists, then I may expect that there are others who would contribute if the language to do so was more accessable.

on changing language:
a tree is a tree, whether described through modern biology or as the habitation of wood nymphs. what changes is how one interacts with the tree, and how another "expects" a tree. the tree by [truth] remains [invisible]. granted, im speaking from trying to understand [true] things as a practice, er, see paragraph above...
 
 
Z. deScathach
09:14 / 18.11.03
Rather than create a new paradigm, why not instead work out methodologies for creating personal paradigms. Far better, IMO, is a non-paradigm, in short, magickal practices more concerned with putting together one's own magickal alphabet,(symbols and visions that are unique to the individual).It seems to me that a lot of energy is spent conforming to a "paradigm", when that energy can be spent exploring the imagination. To me, that was the true essence of the "chaos magick" idea. One of the problems with chaos magick though, is it doesn't deal well with the need to socialize intimately. Secret societies and magickal groups are great for that kind of thing. You get to feel that you are "part of something". The real question in such a non-system is how to deal with group workings. Still, a lot can be learned about techniques that can "link" group members, so that they can share each other's techniques and visions. After all, loneliness is not fun....
To me, the real question is, how can we practice magick in a highly personal fashion, and still take care of those social needs, (the need to hang out with our own "kind"). To me, the real question should be: How do we create a post-modern group that can actually last, while preserving individual magickal freedom?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:52 / 18.11.03
I've said it before, but:

it seems to me that the outdated aspect of magick as most people practice it is instrumentalism; magick as yet another tool for changing one's environment. That's profoundly linked with the modernist/enlightenment project, and it carries all the assumptions and baggages of that mode of living. Chaos magick, while adopting the consequences of the end of that project - the relativism and playfulness which one finds in Modernist art, rather than the certainties of reason which characterise modernity - retains the instrumentalism which is at the heart of the old paradigm.

Fundamentally, magick is still practiced for control. The desire to enforce one's will on the world which is for most people at the heart of it, is the very thing which has to change before it can move on.
 
 
illmatic
14:14 / 18.11.03
Nick, I totally agree with you. I think changing our emphasis here would be an even bigger revolution than anything proposed by Chaos Magick. This is why sometimes the ceaseless profusion of techniques Chaos Mgick throws out seesm so damn boring now, 50 ways to fire a sigil all to achieve the some bloody thing with no criticism of why the fuck you want to achieve this in the first place. Having said that, I do think you can find other approaches and angles in esotericism though - ideas that encourge self awareness and self critque but you've got to struggle through loads of crap, endless boring spellbooks.

I've been having a lot of discussion lately with a friend of mine about the Thelemic idea of the True Will, which he sees very much as finding a place within the world, in alignment with it, "Thy will, not mine be done". An awareness of oneself as an expression of a larger process, which, in itslef, is quite a challenge to our conditioning. Not totally focused on one's own spritual perfection (narcissism)or totally focused on making the world do what you want (egotism). Rather finding a dynamic balancing point between the two which sits right. I'm much more interested in this kind of process than I am in just changing the bloody terminology.
 
 
Z. deScathach
20:52 / 18.11.03
Agreed. To me as well, I don't see the solution to the problem as juat more technique in the enforcing of will. Still, there is no reason why this has to be an either/or situation. Chaos magick has gotten boring as sin, but when one really examines it, that boredom has arisen in the "shared technique" department. Journeying withing oneself for me at least never gets boring. But sharing that experience as if it's some objective truth can be very boring to whatever poor soul stumbles upon it. IMO, what people really can use are ways to break down their egos, so that they can more interface with their surroundings. In this way, magick can be about "finding one's place in the world". Still, ,there is a certain aspect of life that is competitive, fast moving, and dangerous. Egoistic magick can be very useful in pulling oneself out of a jam, (and I do believe that ,they happen no matter how enlightened we may be). I don't see why one approach has to be junked in favor of the other. The inner journey combined with the outer integration has been going on for ages. To me, the real problem is to sutain community without going back to the old Victorian way of grades and "secrets". Magick itself deals with themes that are so common in human beings, that while the particulars may vary from person to person or culture to culture, the general archtypes are very similar. That, IMO, was chaos magicks great contribution. It essentially proved that the "My way is right, and your way is wrong" arguement was an illusion. Perhaps that was it's real purpose. It could be argued that a lot of people are doing chaos magick nowadays, but they are not calling it that. They're doing they're own thing. Still, to me, there is a growing sense that people practicing magick are isolating themselves. In order to be part of the greater whole requires community. That's where the real problem lies, and in terms of a new "paradigm", that's what it should focus on. We are doing this, now how can we organize anarchically, (I don't that such a concept is an oxymoron). It is true, however, that "transcending" oneself is necessary for the formation of community, oherwise all of the ego conflicts destroy it.
 
 
Z. deScathach
21:13 / 18.11.03
Sorry about the extra post, but upon reading the above one, I realized that I'm doing a lousy job of expressing myself. My point is, after you've embraced "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted", how do you go beyond that without just going back to "Some stuff is true and others false, and you're not allowed to do this". The real question shouldn't be "how do we do this differently", but "just what should we DO with this, anyway, and who should we do it with". What's needed are new organizational ideas.
 
 
cusm
21:25 / 18.11.03
after you've embraced "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted", how do you go beyond that

It is now your choice to decide what is True for you. The original statement is a deconstruction intended to bring you to a point of liberation where you can take control of your own reality. The way to move forward is to decide then what is true, and work with it.
 
 
Z. deScathach
06:12 / 19.11.03
Well, that's not the point I was trying to make. A new paradigm will simply go back to the conditions that existed before the above statement, (Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted) was examined. I wasn't talking about how to go beyond that statement in terms of myself. I was using it to point out that a new paradigm of magick is a boondoggle. Now that the cat is out of the bag, we now have as many paradigms as there are individiuals. A new paradigm simply returns one to the area of standardized magickal practice. Therefor, IMO, the new paradigns that we should we examining shouldn't be in terms of "how" we practice magick, but "how" we organize.
 
 
Quantum
09:33 / 19.11.03
So really you're considering how to found new magical organisations rather than making 'new' magic? I'm all for that.
How about a new thread to discuss the pros and cons, problems and solutions of creating a group of magicians?
 
 
Z. deScathach
04:18 / 20.11.03
Consider it done!
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply