BARBELITH underground
 

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


Is there such a thing as Postmodern magic?

 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:25 / 30.01.04
The term "postmodern magick" gets bandied around a lot in the magick forum, but I wonder what it actually means to people. It's often associated with chaos magic, but is cm really as postmodern as it makes out? For example, I found this definition of chaos magic at chaosmagic.com:

"Chaos Magick is a Postmodern system of Occultism that strives to reduce the Magickal Ceremonies of the world's various religions and occult orders to their quintessential essence."

As I understand the postmodern agenda, it rests on taking up a constructivist stance to experience, yet surely the idea that "ceremonies" have a "quintessential essence." is an essentialist position? I'm confused.
 
 
Quantum
14:42 / 30.01.04
Speaking for myself I see PM magick as the successor to CM, as my (limited) understanding of CM is that it seeks the code behind the rituals, the essential nature the quote elucidates. If Chaos magick was all about stripping the art down to it's essential components, postmodern magick strikes me as being more concerned with amalgamating different systems to construct a new one.
Maybe I'm talking rubbish, but I think PM is distinct from CM. When I say postmodern magick I mean contemporary magick, which has (or is developing) it's own identity distinct from CM and needs a seperate label. I think of PM as the bastard child of CM in a way.
 
 
Boy in a Suitcase
15:42 / 30.01.04
Quantum it may be pointed out that your description of "PM" would be a fitting one for Thelema.

Death to chaos magick. Death to postmodernism. Death to time itself.

"Your way IS the only way. Disobey." –E. N. Orange, "Thee Flaws ov Magick" (see www.z0s.net)
 
 
beautifultoxin
19:02 / 30.01.04
*the Comparative Literature drop-out Witch pulls up a chair*

Here's my favorite definition of postmodernism as of today, which comes to us from The American Bible Society:

Postmodernism has emerged as many-headed, multi-armed, waving in different incompatible directions, at once old and new. It represents a mix of new ways of thinking and reactions to Modernism, but it also returns to the old and pre-modern for its inspiration and models. Postmodernism criticism spans the accumulated experience of Western civilization, industrialization, urbanization, advanced technology, the national state, and life in the "fast lane," among others. And, it challenges modern priorities such as career, office, individual responsibility, bureaucracy, liberal democracy, tolerance,humanism, egalitarianism, detached experiment, evaluative criteria, neutral procedures, impersonal rules and rationality.

Unlike Modernism, which gloried in the new, Postmodernism believes that there is nothing new to discover. It prefers to look with nostalgia to a pre-modern popular culture that was self-managing and self-reproducing.

Pastiche is a good example. This approach draws from many different and already existing forms, divorces them from their original meaning, and brings them together, giving them new meaning. Already existing boundaries between issues and diverse fields of endeavor are beginning to blur, change or disappear and changes or shifts taking place in the field of the arts (aesthetics) are influencing, affecting and/or creating changes across fields of endeavor not normally influenced by the arts.


My understanding of postmodern magic draws more from witchcraft than from Ceremonial Magic, in the sense of that yearning towards the pre-modern world and its paradigms, which are unknowable for certain, but provide useful maps, at the very least. Witchcraft posits itself as ancient and modern, with my tradition, Feri, being one of the few that is shamelessly honest about being about 100 years old, though informed by much older technology. The values it rests upon point back to the (supposed) pre-modern, pre-Christian worldview, whereas the tools and techniques are allowed to evolve into the future along with the practitioners.

(Again, this isn't really the case for a lot of other traditions of the Craft, but there are Feri teachers and covens out there that pratice chaos magic right alongside Feri magic.)

This business of aiming back towards an essential truth feels markedly modern to me. What postmodernism revels in is the orgasmic plurality; that is, if we collage and gel and read along one another enough different traditions, we may soon, in a gestalt and not merely in analytic observation, identify their common seed -- however, as in magic and Feri, this experience must be felt and simply cannot be described. You have to be there, right?

My concern is that post/modern magic has become entirely too academic -- and this is coming from an academic -- and that in simply observing or studying, one is not a magician. Not only that, but most postmodern theorists work in a postcolonial framework, so this business of "reduc[ing] the Magickal Ceremonies of the world's various religions and occult orders to their quintessential essence," if not done with an understanding of the cultural context in which such traditions arise and their "reduction" occurs, such as the ongoing legacy of Western dominance, pitting Eurocentric "science" against "primitive superstition" (a racist agenda at its core), CM's & PM's risk repeating said conquests anew.

Sure, there may be a "quintessential essence" in the human desire to do magic, or even in the ritual forms of people through time and space that make us feel connected to some larger pattern, but what interests me about magic is the modifications magicians and artists make to the technology through the ages. It's not always an upgrade. Viewed from that context, what is being bandied about as postmodern magic right now doesn't feel very postmodern at all.

Which is a pity, because the cultural inquiry being produced with postmodern theory is one of the things that holds my magic together. Maybe the right people haven't come along yet to make them sing together just right. (Barring a few voices, GM's among them, right?)
 
 
Unconditional Love
08:47 / 02.02.04
hi, the idea that chaos magic is about an essence is misinformed "nothing is true everything is permitted" ie there are no truthes, also a self negating sentence, this also isnt true there are no truthes, truth can be considered the fiction of language as are lies and also lying truthes and truthful lies ,truthful lying truthes and lying lying truthes etc etc .
there was once a popular idea of pre futurism in topy anybody remember what it was?

regards.
 
 
illmatic
09:54 / 02.02.04
....this business of "reduc[ing] the Magickal Ceremonies of the world's various religions and occult orders to their quintessential essence," if not done with an understanding of the cultural context in which such traditions arise and their "reduction" occurs, such as the ongoing legacy of Western dominance, pitting Eurocentric "science" against "primitive superstition" ..

Brillant post, BT. I think you've summed up in a nutshell the annoyance many of us feel at the reductive, know-it-all approach of (some parts of) Chaos Magick. I's nice to see the libnks between this and larger intellectual projects expressed so clearly. It's no coincidence that Pete Caroll was pushing, in his book Liber Kaos, magick as science/engineering - a technology bascially unerpinned by physics. Didn't really seem to catch - I suspect this is because it doesn't really inspire people, and if peole are looking for anything when they come to magick it's something to fire the imagination.
 
 
macrophage
10:00 / 02.02.04
This like Hegelian stuff - y'know "thesis + antithesis = synthesis." If something works then something works, either on a personal soloist or group scale?! Is PM Magick a synthesis of everything as in some sort of meta-belief system?! Are we talking new code here? What the heck does PM mean - I've never heard of the term, I expect I'll have to get to the back of the class!!!! Sorta like Peter Carroll crossed with Douglas Rushkoff???? ah the sweet smell of obfuscation......
 
 
Z. deScathach
09:51 / 03.02.04
I don't know. I sort of question the whole idea of "post-modern". Ultimately, when you get down to it, the techniques of magick have a sort of ground to them, but that ground is rather sterile if the technique does not freshly relate to oneself as well as the culture that one is living in. For myself, when reading other's techniques, I'm always attracted to magick that has a certain relevance to me. Either the philosophy fulfills some sort of internal or external need, or relates to my present world-view. In that sense, I think that magick is always evolving into modernity, modernity as defined by the sensibility of the times. Magick will continue to evolve to fit the times, and will include symbol sets that relate to the minds of those who are practicing it.
 
 
Zhi
13:24 / 03.02.04
Hi y'all,
I understand post - modern to be mainly sceptivcal of the modernist idea of a truth - a single truth that over rides all others, or unites all others - the post modernist seeks to critique this idea. Its intresting that many follow and belief in the ultimate modernist fantasy about the history of religious ideas viz - magic (prescience) - religion ( wrong rationalisation ie superstition) - science (correct rationialisation) - this idea was most bandied around by frazier, he of the Golden Bough - which is a book which influence the modern occult revival!

Is all contempory magic, really 'modern' magic therefor? are we stuck in a discourse that is actually defined by modernist concerns? Are we just using the past(or the foriegn, ie 'the eatern') to feel good about ourselves in the present? is this any diffrent from what victorian colonialists did?

One of the things about the post modern perspective is that it aims to reclaim 'otherness' - does magic really conect to otherness any more, is it really wyrd? or is it just a publishing arm of conform/rebel Inc?

just a thought,

T>C>
 
 
Salamander
00:22 / 04.02.04
Being a discordian I must insist that kaos magic is better than post-modern magic because kaos is a cooler word than post-modern. Also I do not feel that chaos magic is so much a distillation as a license to experiment, to see what works and incorporate it into your own methods, not just of the old but to go in a new direction, to push the limit, to insist there is a differant way to do something, even if its not a better way, maybe its prettier, and so with that being said I add myself to the long list of jerks that have tried to eff the ineffable, fnord.
 
 
Maclaine Diemer
00:44 / 04.02.04
Hello all. I'm completely new here and this is my first post, but this topic intrigued me. I think that everyone is trying to make a linie of distinction where none exists. In the first reply to this post, Quantum had this to say:

"If Chaos magick was all about stripping the art down to it's essential components, postmodern magick strikes me as being more concerned with amalgamating different systems to construct a new one."

If you read Phil Hine's excellent and accessible book "Condensed Chaos," this is exaclty how he describes Chaos Magic. It is a way to make your own form of magic, removing any contextual baggage from a particular belief system and using only the aspects of it you need to achieve a result.

Also, Z. deScathach's post illustrates the basic reason for practising Chaos Magic:

"For myself, when reading other's techniques, I'm always attracted to magick that has a certain relevance to me. Either the philosophy fulfills some sort of internal or external need, or relates to my present world-view."

This is the true essence of what CM is all about. You take what you think is relevant and use it as you require.

To say that Chaos Magic does not inspire is to not see the beauty of it. You are free to believe anything you want, for however long you want. You can even contradict yourself if neccessary. You can choose to eliminate any historical or cultural significance assigned to a particular magical technique, or you can embrace it. You are free to do whatever you want, and this may seem uninspiring because you don't just get to inherit someone else's way of doing things, but I don't think it is. What it does require is a little bit of work on the magician's part in developing a worldview, which can be hindered by an individual's lack of imagination. I see this as an exciting challenge; to decide for yourself how you want to approach magic, not just take someone else's approach as a given.

To sum up, there is no difference between Chaos Magic and Postmodern Magic. They are one and the same, and this argument is merely one of semantics.
 
 
beautifultoxin
05:02 / 04.02.04
I don't mean to slam Chaos Magic. I certainly wouldn't be here if I didn't resonate with the current of Chaos Magic.

Chaos Magic seems to hold a paradox within it that is absolutely postmodern and modern simaltaneously:

1. Chaos Magic endeavors to offer the Root Code of all magical/mystical/occult systems so that the end-user can learn simply that. Efficiency breeds embellishment. Once you've got the source code, you can modify it. Mods makes magic sexier to the people you want to draw to you, who in turn add more mods to the system. More and more people start to practice magic. The world bubbles over with chaotic sexy hottness.

2. Wait! There's a single, universal source code for magic? I don't think so. That's so... so... modern!

Does that make sense?

Personally, I want magic to get bigger, sluttier, more shameless, and more dominant in popular culture. There's a potential for such an expansion of what constitutes magic -- that is, the initial promise of chaos magic, that magic is what you make of it, that there are no rules (well, except for... hence the paradox) -- to really shake things up, really make waves in the dominant paradigm. It just seems that in its pubsecent bliss, Chaos Magic is risking duplication of the failings of the dominant paradigm -- that is, the essentialist, "one true way" dogma that marginalizes magical practice.

Now that postmodernism is more or less a slur when it comes to pop culture and politics, and that what we understand to be postmodernism has strayed far, far from its roots in cultural theory, maybe chaos magic needs to jettison the term.

As sexy as it is.

Because if it's not sexy, it doesn't work.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
09:05 / 04.02.04
When CM arose in the late '70's, it's exponents made some pithy (and to my mind, valid) criticisms of the magical approaches that presaged it. I for one do not see any problem with applying a critical eye to CM.

Chaos Magic seems to hold a paradox within it that is absolutely postmodern and modern simaltaneously

Interesting observation, BT. Part of the problem is that different authors have brought different 'spins' to CM. If, for example, one focuses on Pete Carroll's approach, it's easier to see where the "Modernist" element is coming from.
1. It was Pete who proposed the "root code" approach - that whatever the content of different magical systems, the underlying techniques are essentially the same.
2. Pete has consistently, over the last two decades, banged the "science" drum, as it were, at one point (in a letter to Nox magazine, going so far as to distinguish between "rationalist-technocratic" CMs and "anarcho-mystic" CMs and predicting that the latter's influence would wane as CM evolved.
3. Pete has also suggested (more than once) that CM will become the "dominant" magical paradigm of the "new" aeon.
Can we say "Grand Narrative" here? I think so.

When I first encountered CM in the 1980's, the 'ditch the dogma and do some magic' angle was very persuasive, particularly coming from a background in which the dominant views I'd encountered were very much of the "occult theories are TRUE descriptions of the universe" and "that's all very well but it isn't 'magical' so we're going to ignore it". So CM's emphasis on blurring the boundaries between different disciplines/genres (as sources of inspiration for magical activity) was again, welcome. Having also been exposed to Social Constructionism at a tender age, CM seemed to me to be not a million miles away from what people like Erving Goffman or Peter Berger were talking about in their models of a socially-constructed "Consensus Reality".

It's easy also, in retrospect, to see why some exponents of CM took up postmodernism - as postmodernism validates the idea of a "spiritual supermarket" wherein the "products" of different "magical systems" are up for grabs - in bite-size chunks. A situation aptly described by John Wallis:
...there exists a huge range of religious ideas and systems available to the modern individual, and individuals can and do assemble for themselves their own personal and shifting belief systems out of the panoply of elements presented to them.

Sound familiar?

Now that postmodernism is more or less a slur when it comes to pop culture and politics, and that what we understand to be postmodernism has strayed far, far from its roots in cultural theory, maybe chaos magic needs to jettison the term.

I agree. Care to expand on that?
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:11 / 04.02.04
the kao that can be spoken of is not the kao.

the over intellectualisation of magick seems to be a huge problem to me it becomes about sitting around talking about it rather than actually doing anything , to a degree there is a basis for research, but once that knowledge is aquired it becomes about acting upon it not wanking over its whys and wherefores, there is a process in tantra that goes something like this will - knowledge - action, i found that for a good 15 years i was stuck in the knowledge research part with out actually putting it in to practice, until i gave away all my books and stopped using them as a focus point and all the attendent language structures , intrestingly enough the magick thats is in you becomes apparent rather than the source of the external focus, ie chat rooms books ritual objects bits an bobs. isnt that all a way just to spin a fast quid or two out of you any way, so you can feel like a magician cause your book shelf tells you so.

as for this post chaotic modernism malarcky or is it modern post chaosism is it really relevant at all in any sense? spiritual shopping for new age ken and barbie and dark thelemic action man and cindy seems to me to be all over the place from night classes, , book shops etc etc its alot of wank really, intresting but wanky.

so is post modernism chaotic? or is chaos post modern? for me i learnt that chaos is chaos not a theory not something to write books about but a state of being a state of awareness, its not a philosophy and it certainly cant be bound by words mine or anybody elses, it defies rationality, shits on it without reason, and is this shit post modern? its what grows in the shit perhaps,ramble , ramble mindless ramble.
 
 
roach
23:12 / 04.02.04
As yet another academic, i tend to mark the biggest change in postmodernism compared to previous doctrines is that, because there is no underlying truth, you're able to assert contradictions. The benefit to this from an academic's point of view is that you dont have to try to come up with those horrible, over-elaborate "Theories of Everything" that have plagued so much magic/academia over the past few years.

The problem with asking if Chaos Magic is modern or postmodern is that both currents run through CM. If you read Phil Hine, GM, or most of Z-Cluster, they're coming from a more postmodern viewpoint. As they all repeat on numerous occasions, "The Map is not the Territory".

Pope Pete, on the other hand, has the same problem as all hermetic influenced schizophrenics of the past years (Crowley being number one). As much as he talks the talk of wanting to strip magic to its basics, its closer to Crowley and the new age gang's attempts to force every bit of occultism into an arbitrary model, and chuck out what they dont like (Carroll on Astrology, anyone?)

If we want to move towards a truly postmodern magic (and this, of course, is everyone's choice), we need to gradually move Carroll, Crowley, etc out of our magical philosophy. When they're out of our philosophy, we'll have the chance to build a more truly postmodern magical philosophy, which will simply slide into postmodern magic
 
 
roach
23:19 / 04.02.04
As another, slightly quicker thought, I just wanted to comment on "not caring about magical philosophy". Even if you dont think about the thing we usually think of as magical philosophy, there's still something behind it, a completely pragmatic philosophy. This is perhaps the most postmodern magical philosophy of all, as you dont even need to explain why there are contradictions. If you truly do not care at all about "why" and "how", then you really are as postmodern as it gets
 
 
Z. deScathach
05:26 / 05.02.04
beautiful toxin: Personally, I want magic to get bigger, sluttier, more shameless, and more dominant in popular culture. There's a potential for such an expansion of what constitutes magic -- that is, the initial promise of chaos magic, that magic is what you make of it, that there are no rules (well, except for... hence the paradox) -- to really shake things up, really make waves in the dominant paradigm. It just seems that in its pubsecent bliss, Chaos Magic is risking duplication of the failings of the dominant paradigm -- that is, the essentialist, "one true way" dogma that marginalizes magical practice.

Personally, I don't see this occuring, at least not for very long, as stagnation eventually leads to an explosion of change. In a sense, Pope Pete went for the solidity paradigm, no matter his protestations. Nothing wrong with that, why should there be? If chaos magick is truly grounded in the asertion, "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted", then what's the problem with Peter Carroll going for the "Grand System" viwepoint? Flexibility and changeability are merely the opposites of unchangeability and solididty. The source code that was mentioned will never be in danger of becoming essentialist, because it is the "sluttiness" that was mentioned that provides magick with it's appeal. Magicks greatest appeal, (at least in this time), is that it engages the whole person rather than just socially approved parts. As society changes, magick will probably change in order to provide a counter-point to that future-day society. The reason that the source code will not become essentialist, is because that is not what is attractive about magick. It's the embellishment of the code that is the draw. The human is designed to engage deep imagination in conjunction with such things. To one person, science provides the "hot spark". To another, prancing with demons, to another, quiet meditative focus. People will always embellish the source code, because embellishment is PART of the source code. It's what makes magick work. All that chaos magick did was point out the pointlessness of arguing which way is the "right" way. As such, chaos magick, IMO, is less a system, than an argument, a philosophy that says, "Quit arguing with me, doing it is more fun".
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:16 / 05.02.04
The reason that the source code will not become essentialist, is because that is not what is attractive about magick. It's the embellishment of the code that is the draw.

Interesting point, Z. However, the stance I'm taking is to argue that the idea that there is
a "source code" is essentialist in itself, and can lead to a reductionist perspective - the idea that magic is just about technique and the rest of it is more-or-less arbitary.

Quoting Pete Carroll himself:
...all systems do use some practical techniques which occur in other traditions and which in total form an identifiable and quantifiable set of practical actions. By experiencing and mastering this body of techniques we can understand how any system or tradition functions and we can make any tradition work for us. You can call this the ultimate in dilettantism, if you wish-we call it illumination.quoted from Illuminate to Incandescence

I feel it might be worth focusing on this very attractive idea that there is a common "source code" to all magical systems. I'm not sure that there is, personally - and surely the very idea begs the question "who decides what that source code is?" and by extension - "do we agree with it?"

I'll try and give a practical example of this problem. Quoting Pete again:
Thus in invocation a conscious identification with the entity is used to provoke the manifestation of its ascribed powers from the magicians subconscious...Better Wizardry

That's a very stark definition of invocation. But is it 'true' for all cases of invocation? Would, say, the invocation done by a Western Ceremonial magician in his basement and the invocation of Kali in a Sri Lankan possession ceremony 'essentially' the same thing? Surely context matters?
 
 
illmatic
12:12 / 05.02.04
Interesting - not got time to debate today but the thing that struck me about that last quote ie. it's all the subconscious - very close to a rationalist "there is no magic" point of view. (I know PC doesn't think this, but there you go).
 
 
Z. deScathach
13:37 / 05.02.04
I see your point. In referring to "source code", however, I was more pointing to certain things found in all magickal systems. An example of this is alteration of consciousness. I've yet to see a magickal system that does not utilize this. HOW it is done, however, and what the ultimate alteration is clearly differs in various cultures. In some cultures, chemognosis is employed, in others, various learned techniques are used, and still through all of them, alteration of consciousness is employed. IMO, the actual source code in this case is so basic as to cut out the elements of magickal practice that make it both personally and culturally relevent. Indeed, consciousness may be the only "source code" that there actually is. The rest is embellishment. Essentially, my arguement is that the need to embellish upon the basic raw material of consciousness may be part of the basic source code. As humans, we use symbols extensively in our thinking processes, so it's not surprising that we would use them in magick. Even then, *intended* embellishment is not always found. I came across a method that essentially tells one to enter mental silence with the intent to make something happen. In such a technique, no symbols whatsoever are used, (though in my experience, they may, and often do, spontaneously form during the working). Still, alteration of consciousness is clearly present. My point was that alteration of consciousness itself tends to produce symbology, as in the working mentioned above. To me, the greatest danger of chaos magick becoming essentialist is from it's insistence on "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted". As an unambiguous statement, it is presented as a truth. Granted, there are some chaos mages who may disagree with that statement. If chaos magick presents that view as correct, in opposition to the idea, "There are Truths, and some things are Not Permitted", it has become essentialist, becoming what it was trying to avoid.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:07 / 06.02.04
nothing is true everything is permuted i think is presented as a tool rather than a correct view or uncorrect stance, its a reminder that the negation of self allows gnosis to be achieved. if you take the phrase as being self referential it negates itself,nothing is true everything is permitted, as a tool it implies the magician also needs to negate themselves. its a belief tool, belief as a tool rather than a correct philosophy or incorrect.

i think hasan sabbah had that in mind, its totally effective self assassination. like cut ups when applied to consciousness the remixed self an experiment in different versions of you and your relationship to it all, there just dynamic tools not static beliefs, unless of course you need them to be.
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:06 / 06.02.04
perhaps utilitarian magick, mercenary magi, opportunity knocks......
or as mr hine once described it, the magick of need.
 
  
Add Your Reply