Barbelith Underground > Temple > Post-Modern Magick by Seth

Bruno and all,

Well we've definitely gotten some heated debate about this up, some of it from me, some of it from all of you. Let me address your comments Bruno.

But the two examples Buffy and Star Trek are from TV. What the fuck? They do not and cannot deal with archetypical forms like myth does. Working with TV and video games is working within the context of SPECTACLE, which disguises itself as reality, but is infinitely more limited than reality. The values TV and videogames express and cultivate are those of capitalist ideology.

Why do they not and can't as you put it deal with archetypal forms as myth does? Hate to tell you this, but those are the new myths and the Television, etc are just new forms of technology to convey those myths. And let's not forget that myths from earlier times convey their own ideologies and are also Gasp! SPECTACLE. Can you get away from performance,spectacle, etc? Maybe if you become a hermit in the woods, though that didn't seem to help the unabomber too much, because he was stil lcaught up in SPECTACLE, even if he was trying to fight it. Or can you take these new myths, these new spectacles this new technology that conveys this stuff and use it? Bruno, if you choose to work with Greek Gods you're still participating in SPECTACLE, albeit with a different ideology. But you know what it's time for magic to face the times and get a little more contemporary and deal with the issues and ideologies that in our time. Can the Greek gods help with that? Sure, but my point is why not use Star Trek or Buffy or some other from of pop culture, which may have colonial imperialistic capitalist ideology invested in it. Incidentally though even older forms of mythology aren't exampt from being incorporated and changed by the current ideologies. The ps2 game God of War is such an example, but even though it has capitalist ideologies, etc, there's potential magical work that can be done with it. Sure it may have that, but that doesn't mean you can't use it, subvert it, and otherwise undermine it through use. The magician is most effective when s/he takes the tools of others and extends them beyond the intial use or understanding of the creator. To me it's a very magical act when you can take something like Buffy and use it in your magical practice. Here's my question: why let yourself be limited by the ideologies of others in terms of what you use and how you use it?

TV is about Hollywood personalities pretending they are characters in scripts, which are written by teams of people, who are basically marketing this series to a network, who are marketing this series to advertisers. What kind of depth can you read into this stuff? Star Trek is about a hierarchically organized military crew; it's propaganda with some superficially progressive elements. (Mr Zerzan on Star Trek: http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/startrek.htm). Buffy as counter-culture, hahaha what a joke!! It’s Beverly Hills 90210 with vampires. It’s Hollywood colonialism shitting in the Universal Mind.

The same can be said of myths...and other cultural artefacts. Just because something is contemporary does not make it less valid to use and just because the creators' intents are different from my own, with all the ideologies wrapped up in it, doesn't mean you can't use the contemoporary version of myths (fiction or whatever else you wish to call it). Maybe the problem here is that you percieve that by using pop culture that I or other people are supporting the capitalist ideology, but everytime you buy something, watch something, etc, you're supporting that ideology. I'd rather take the products of that ideology and put it to my own use.

I agree with Gypsy Lantern's critique that there is no difference between mainstream culture and pop-culture ('cult'). As mainstream culture (i.e. advanced capitalism) gradually encompasses all facets of life it can only disguise its monolithic nature by appearing as a pluralistic phenomenon that offers us a 'freedom of choice' which is fake. All available choices are identical (a) in what they take for granted and (b) in what they refuse to engage with. (Doesn't Carroll predict something similar in the bit in LN&P about the future)

Well refusing to engage with pop culture and use it sounds like a mainstream choice, don't ya think? And if we go with your definition we can't avoid mainstream culture in any case, and if that's the case, my choice is to use it, and take what opportunities I can from it instead of just letting myself placidly give up because I don't agree with the ideology.

Taylor what exactly do you think you mean by fucking with the system? Does this counter-culture/pop-culture you believe in have anything to do with ending alienation and bringing about more substantial modes of communication, social organizing and being?

The very act of using pop culture as another sets of tools, tools that are contextual to our times and cultures is something I feel can be useful for social organizing. for instance, having people dress up in Star Wars imperial trooper uniforms and then going and protesting against a war will certainly get more notice then a bunch of hippies doing it, which is a stereotypical image at this point. It'll also be an ironic commentary on war, by protesting against it with a fictional army of imperial troops that repesent imperialism. The sarcasm alone is an effective tool because it throws the imperialism of the U.S. for instance right in its face. Shocking the sensibilities of mainstream culture, forcing people to take notice on issues instead of just drowning themselves in the mundanity of their lives is a very magical act. As for ending alienation, etc, depends on what you are willing to take in as pop culture. I like working with pop culture of other cultures. I'll admit that even workign with that does not give me a complete picture or even an accurate picture of another culture, though it can lead to dialogue with people in those cultures and give you a reference point by which you can have that dialogue. But to be completely honest, the book isn't about social transformation...it's about the magician's transformation and choice of using pop culture as another set of tools for doing magic, if s/he so chooses. If you want to use the approaches in their for social transformation, then by all means do so.

Now granted I think they could've chosen a better goal for protesting, but it was a different kind of protest/activity that went against the conformity of mainstream society. <--- Your understanding of 'conformity' is very superficial.

I was using this as an example. And i'll agree it's a superficial example for a superficial protest. you might've noted that I said in that quote that they could've chosen a better goal. That being said, I still find it humorous that they chose to protest and do so as Star war geeks, inhabiting that paradigm to do their protest.

It is about fucking time people realized that Society of the Spectacle is a magical text, and if they don’t banish Spectacle, they are possessed by it. We live in Babylon.

It's about fucking time people stop bitching and moaning about the evils of mainstream culture and do something about it. You want to banish the Society of the SPECTACLE, then banish all the books, myths, legends, every cultural artifact, because that's the only way you'll rid of the society of the spectacle. Of course no more occultism, etc, but hey at least you won't have to up put with babylon. I think such a reality would be extrmely dull, static and just plain boring. I'd rather use the spectacle, have fun with it, experiment with it. That's the challenge for the magician.

TaylorEllwood

15:09 / 09.05.05

Too dogmatic for me. Prove it.

Lol...Seth I can't prove that. That's your god, not mine. You'll have to prove it. Can you disprove me? To be honest, reading your responses to me as left me with the impression of dogmatism on your part.

You have a nice theory and I don’t necessarily always disagree, but taking it up wholesale in all instances without being able to believe something contradictory where the circumstances merit would be selling out a more rich and complex understanding for mere Chaos Magic orthodoxy. Where nothing can be proved (such as your above comment) I won’t jump to creating theology where none can be found.

And Seth that's your choice. More power to you. I don't see why you feel the need to attack my practices and tell me I don't know what god is. To you, to your definition, I don't, but to me I do. And that's what it comes down to: Use what works for you and let me use what works for me.

Again, evidence that you haven’t probably haven’t worked with a God. Gods don’t necessarily expect worship: worship is the natural reaction to them.

They don't, do they? That's why using Judeo-Christianity as an example they had a god who punished them if they didn't worship him, and made them fear him so that he could get love. The Christian choice for afterlife...if you believe in me you go to heaven...if you don't you go to hell. Seems to me that, that god definitely wanted worship and love and had no bones about forcing people to do it.

It’s probably that attitude that limits you from meeting what are actually Gods, hence why you’d prefer a domesticated pantheon of your own making. There are risks to making friends with oceans, but there are also risks to forever playing in paddling pools without realising that’s what you’re doing.

I find it interesting that you didn't quote what I said about Magic, which I acknowledge I worship, and to be honest would be the closest I would come to your notion of God. One hell of a big ocean, IMHO, since magic seems to manifest in the majority of cultures. You seem to feel that a person needs to have a God to look up to. I look up to magic. That's what I worship, that's what I'm devoted to everyday, so stop making assumptions about my attitude or what I know or don't know about gods.

It seems to me that a lot of modern magical traditions have changed the playing field of definitions until they have lost their meaning. The standard definition of God includes the notion of worship as built-in. It seems much more likely to me that magically inclined types wanted the kudos of saying that they worked with the Gods but found the connotation of worship problematic to their egos, and therefore removed it. And of course, experience being plastic they had results that conformed to their beliefs and therefore never met an actual God by the definition the vast majority of the rest of the world use.

Seth, some people want to evolve beyond the gods. I don't see why worship is so integral, to be honest. You want to use it, do it. As for myself, I have other intentions and if that bothers you, I can't help you with that. Maybe you feel that i'm disrespecting your beliefs by choosing the path I'm taking or that by commenting on using pop culture entities as god forms, that i'm disrespecting you're practice and you're beliefs? Or that i'm disrespecting the gods, because i'm choosing to approach from a different perspective than is normally used? Or maybe you feel that by not taking the traditional approach, my discussion about gods is lacking because I don't understand them the way that you do? And you know what, from you're perspective, you'd be right. By your perspective I am disrespecting the gods and my discussion/practice is lacking because I don't approach them the traditional way. But my perspective is different and says that my approach is valid, for me. It works, for me. I don't need to worship a god, to know that god, but I will say how i know that god, how I interact god is different from how you do it. Does that mean my relationship is lacking? No and you know why because you don't have the say on that relationship. I, and the god I choose to work with does and if that god chooses not to work with me because of how I choose to approach him/her, that god will let me know. It's a reciprocal relationship, which means we both have to agree to the relationship and we both get something out of the relationship. Incidentally, I don't just work with pop culture god forms, but also more established god forms. I just happen to enjoy working with pop culture and IMHO, it's the new mythology, and has entities that are specific to this culture, as opposed to being from another culture. My problem with working with gods from other cultures, is that unless you lived in that original time period, spoke the language, and was part of the original culture, the context by which you understand that god is mediated by your own cultural perspective. Seems to me if you're goign to work with/worship a god, you should od it in the original language and culture to really approach that god. that says respect to me, but I don't know a lot of people speak or read ancient Greek fluidly, to use an example.

Now that’s just a theory, but it’s one that fits with my experience, both in terms of Gods and magical practitioners. On the one hand you say that people shouldn’t judge working with pop-culture ideas until they’ve done it. On the other hand you seem quite comfortable commenting on relating to Gods without actually having done it in the sense virtually everyone else means, only in your conveniently revised and neutered sense.

Again you didn't quote me on the worship of magic, so once again you're making an assumption. I don't choose to work with a god as you mean it, but working with a force such as magic certainly has given me the sense of reverence, awe, and worship that I feel toward it. Magic is my friend, my lover, my everything..or to put it in terms that you employ. Magic is my god, so if anythign you are conveniently revising and neutering you're understanding of my approaches...

Having noticed that you’re running with a drastically altered definition I’m not going to take your artificial and magnanimous route of saying that our experiences are comparable, “whatever works for you.” I’ll point out that you haven’t done what you claim to have done, and that you’ve used a little sleight of hand with the English language to make it look as though you have. You may even believe that you have met Gods, such is the power of words… but your writing on the subject, and your beliefs about worship/devotions/service show that you have not.

Dogmatic, dogmatic, dogmatic...imagine a musical tune in your mind when you read that Seth. Seth, you keep trying to tell me that you know my relationship with the gods I work with better than I do. STOP. You do not. Please do not make assumptions. I respect that you have your own approaches that work for you. Throughout my responses to everyone you may note that I say again and again that what is really important is what works for the practitioner. A person's spirituality with magic, with the gods, etc is between that person and those beings. Stop trying to tell me that you know better than I my own relationship with the beings I choose to work with. You may not like my approaches...and you don't have to. You can tell me that, but don't you tell me that you have a better understanding of my relationship with deity than I do. You have YOUR understanding of your relationship with deity and that's all you have. Your perception that my practices with deity are lacking, are noted, and disagreed with. But I'm not judging your approach and saying it's less valid. It doesn't work for me, and that's all there is to it. and again you still didn't quote what I said about magic, so your response is selective.

No, it’s a statement of personal experience. If you meet a God your ability to adequately question will be blown out of the water. It is they who question you. It’s usually only after months to years of processing the experience that one can begin to interrogate it in that manner, if you’re so inclined.

And you know what, my experience with magic is actually right on with what you are saying here. It did take me years to question the experience of magic overall, but I still feel my belief, my faith in it is stronger for that questioning.

“Experiments?” What are you doing, how are you doing it, what is your objective in doing it?

If you wish to know about my experiments, read my writing. I have neither the time nor the inclination to detail my workings on this forum to the length that I would feel it would be satisfactory.