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

Underground > Temple >

Ego and/or/versus magick

00:48 / 30.10.04

Alter sharing different spaces with chaos mages of distinct types, a series of questions has slowly been forming on my mind.

Is the annihilation, or control, of the ego an inherent practice in chaos magic?
For that matter
Is it considered important in the different practices of magic?

And if it is practiced, Which is the objective to be attained by annihilation or control of ego

Second question: Is there an ethical code to be followed in chaos magick? And in magic’s other branches? I know, I know, in chaos magic that “Nothing is true, every thing is permitted” and the related “Do what you will”… but, is there some kind of meta-ethics implicit, for example, in the paradigm shifting?

Is the alteration of ego related to the reconstruction of personal beliefs that is required to be able to do magic?

Where lies the border between magic and mysticism, if magic includes the annihilation of ego?

A necessary definition I am using the word ego as the personality “shell”, personal importance, the need for attention, the craving to be the best… related to the will to power.

02:00 / 30.10.04

Getting into any mindset, whether you be a magician or a salesman, demands an alteration of ego.

I would think that opening yourself up to many gods and spirits as Chaotes do would necessarily open the ego up to new ways of thinking and perceiving, but I reckon it's down to the magician and the entities contacted whether this expands or reinforces the ego. It has been known for many magicians to transcend their ego just as many others transcend right up their own arses.

Asking if other magical branches have a code of ethics is a bit of an odd question. I reckon they all have some form of ethics, even if that's an abscence of ethics. They're likely to be just as varied as a person's personal ethics.

Having Chaos bound to a system of ethics would make it Order. I think that "Everything is permitted" is sort of the meta-ethic of Chaos. As far as I see it, it's pretty much a realisation of this idea. Doesn't mean to say you can't apply a code of ethics to it, but you couldn't expect others to follow.

Is the alteration of ego related to the reconstruction of personal beliefs that is required to be able to do magic?

That's how I'd see it. In my opinion, physical results magic is useless without the ability to affect change in your own perception. If all you're using it for is to further your own set goals, without trying to see the bigger picture, you'll never really grow. I don't think ego alteration is required in any great degree for some forms of magic, but it is for magic of any worth.

Where lies the border between magic and mysticism, if magic includes the annihilation of ego

I don't know, but after viewing magic from different angles, it gets harder to see the border between it and anything.

Unconditional Love

10:42 / 31.10.04

this is what i gathered from spares work on sigils, an often beginning place for modern ma-jians, the death posture or gnosis inducing trance is a way to by pass the ego, annhilate temporarily its lust for result.

id say ego annihilation is intrinsic to that area of work, and can lead to an intrest of the structure of self and looking at other modes of ego/self removal and remodeling.

in some ways ma-jickle practice has a very firm foundation for leading to more mystical orientated work. the mystical and ma-jickle are intrinsically fused in my opinion.

16:07 / 01.11.04

I agree that magic and mysticism are inseparable.

As for the ego, assuming (and it's probably a foolish assumption) that we are all using the same definition of ego--ie, self with a small "s"--I don't think it needs to be annihilated, just distracted for awhile. I also think that if you practice magic of any kind long enough, you will be changed as a result, regardless of whether or not you want to be. Maybe your small "s" self becomes more like your big "S" Self.

Last, both "do what thou wilt" and "nothing is true, etc" have always had implicit ethical meaning for me, simply because they point out who is always ultimately responsible for your thoughts and actions: You.

09:19 / 02.11.04

Whilst you may not need to get rid of the ego to practise magic, I like gales' idea of distracting it as there is definitely a need to at least reckon with the ego in magical practice. In this sense the answer to your first question is a clear yes both for chaos magic and other traditions. Of course, to reckon with the ego is not in itself to control or destroy it but I think the aim is always to get to a point where we can somehow be elsewhere than the ego and so that's a sort of control i think.

However i think the link between mysticism and magic is more complex, not least because i think there is a sort of 'low' and 'high' mysticism. Low mysticism is immanent, relies on a sort of pantheistic organicism; high mysticism is transcendent, depending on gods/God that is beyond. In the former the problem of truth isn't so important as in the latter where you get the notion of redemption (truth redeeming and all that)...redemption is the problem I think, since this assumes a gain, a possession and a power in that possession which goes against the magical and immanent mysticism, replacing it with dogma, creed and, worst of all, mystical knowing. Low mysticism, on the other hand, welcomes a sense of travel, passage, journey and _in thst sense_ I think it is closely linked to the notion of paradigm shifting which I do think produces a sort of meta-ethical (or ethical as against moral) framework in chaos magic and other eclectic traditions that is fundamental to their existence as currents of practice. It's as though it produces a necessary block to any redemption since it can only ever be a sense of redemption _in this paradigm_ and valid only here, not universally. "I encounter many truths." Something like that anyway...

Unconditional Love

10:53 / 02.11.04

razor, what is high mysticism transcending? and the idea of redemption, what is to be redeemed?

ego, are you born with one? what exactly is ego? i think we probably will have very different ideas of what that means, unless we turn to an authoritarian source for thee definition of ego. for me egolessness is a return to the state of the new born, without conditioning, without thought constructs, pure awareness, undifferentiated consciousness,stainless, awareness without judgement, contemplation without conclusion,wonder,joy,bliss.

perpetual undulating blissful perception.

an understanding that you are not the words not the emotions not the social processes not the memories not the current experiences, but also an understanding that you are those, and and of within.

its also very much a bodily sensation, an ecstasy, a rapture, enlightenment in the sense that i feel lighter, alot of the weight of self has fallen away.

ego to me at present is heavy burden to carry.

10:10 / 03.11.04

wolfangels - high mysticism transcends what is here and now, a world of appearance. redemption is the feeling of having the truth (the knowledge) of teh 'real' world behind appearance. low mysticism accepts a fluid reality, one that is mutable in parts and which allows for the possibility of seeing things totally differently from different perspectives, feeling things totally differently etc but without giving priority to any one of these feelings.

the ego does not have to be heavy. i think the idea of laughter and humour can be vital in (en)lightening the load but then i always quite liked the absurdists...