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 >

More "Joy of Text" - critically reading occult books

  
 
trouser the trouserian
10:24 / 23.01.08
"Critically reading" occult texts - what's involved?
For me, there's something more to this process than just reading from a position of skepticism or not accepting what an author says as "gospel" as it were.

Firstly, I rarely read texts "neutrally". At the very least, I'm going to be reading a book or article because it's a subject I'm interested in and I want to find out what the author has to say on the topic. So there's varying degrees of emotional involvement here - obviously more so if it's a subject that is central to my current focus - less so if it's only a peripheral interest. This might seem like an obvious point to make, but for me a key element of reading critically is to examine my own motivations for reading something - because this will have an impact on how I "receive" the author's writing.

Also, I'm more likely to be more receptive to what an author's saying if I've read (and liked) other things they've written - and on that basis, tend to be more "forgiving" of points I disagree with - though obviously this is not always the case. I recently read a book by an author whose previous work I've found very valuable and thought-provoking - and so rather hoped in this new book he'd expand on some of the themes he'd set up in his previous book - whereas what I actually found is that he tended to reiterate rather than expand in the way I'd hoped he would - so my expectations coloured my response to the author's work. Again, I' m just acknowledging that when I start to read something, I'm bringing to it a variety of expectations - about the author, about the subject, about what I expect to get from the text. I think it helps if I'm aware of this, particulary, if I'm reading a text with the expectation of coming away from it (hopefully) better informed about the subject in hand.

I'm also likely to be influenced by an author's reputation - what other people say about them - particularly if a recommendations come through other sources that I already respect.

From what I remember about when I first started to read occult books - I very much treated them as though they were "factual". It was new knowledge, stuff that excited me - it confirmed things I wanted (or at the very least suspected) to be "true" - which I'll admit was very much my attitude but I also think that a good many occult authors present what they're writing about as "factual".

A recent example of how my "expectations" about a book actually hindered my reception of what the author was saying was my attempt to read Deleuze's The Fold. I'd been attempting to get to grips with a particular magical schema - which is usually discussed by most commentators as a top-down hierarchical system in which all the "bits" get analysed seperately - and I started to think about it as something which folds and unfolds as a flower does. So I thought reading The Fold. would be helpful in getting my thoughts in order. It wasn't - at least not in the way I'd originally envisioned - and it wasn't until I let go of my expectations and started treating the text like an inspirational poem - letting passages leap out at me without trying to follow Deleuze's convoluted argument logically, that I began to get something "out of" the text.

Thoughts?
 
 
Quantum
11:10 / 23.01.08
That's weird, I was thinking about starting a thread about this just last night.

I find in addition to those factors you mention, the other books I'm reading at the same time also influence the way I read- whether I approach it in a more scientific or poetic way for example might depend on whether I'm reading an anthropology text or some Sufi verse. Similarly if I've been reading fiction or non-fiction I might approach a text with more or less suspension of disbelief.

*more later, thanks for starting this thread*
 
 
Katherine
11:27 / 23.01.08
Interesting topic TtT.

I find that if you read a occult book from a position of skepticism and constantly evaluate the text as you read then you can miss out on the inspiriational part of the book. Books for me are something to spark off ideas or to give me possible routes off a dead end I may have come to. In part I read a book because it has subject matter I am currently working with or something I want to look at in greater depth, on the other hand then I can be seduced by a book in a shop with interesting subject matter but it's not something I would normally pick up. I agree with you that this can have an impact on how I read the book and understand it too.

The author is also a factor into how I view the book I am reading, I am more likely to pick up a book if it is written by someone I have read before and liked what I saw and less likely if it was an author I didn't. However I have slowly learnt that just because there were issues with some books or the fact that some authors just rehash the same topic again and again, doesn't mean they aren't worth a read. I believe that these factors shouldn't be ignored but they shouldn't on the other hand be allowed to cloud your reading either.
 
 
illmatic
11:53 / 23.01.08
I guess I'll be the first to mention Kenneth Grant then....

He's one author amongst several who delibrately blur the bounds of fact and faction - can you read KG critically? Or do you have to put this facility aside to engage with him properly?
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:20 / 23.01.08
The author plays an important point for me as well, I find its well worth a little research into the author and there life to understand some of the factors that colour an authors writing.

Even in the case of an academic text it is very difficult to separate the subjective internal narratives of an author from the subject they are treating.

Alot of the books i have read around occult topics give me more of an impression of the person that wrote the book and there take on the subject, than direct objective knowledge of an area. Thats not to say thats entirely negative as i like learning from people and there knowledge, rather than the idea of some abstract disconnected, disembodied knowledge which some texts try to present.(Some authors try to present that sense of disconnection as authority, like a perfect intellect viewing from on high.)

On the one hand i am looking to see what the author does and the text purports to be able to do if followed and practiced and on the other i am trying to decide what the text is, if it carries any truth or meaning to me and how i see it as a piece of art and self presentation.

It means reading as if the text is a science, an art and in some cases religious and hoping its recommended practice will create magic. I find i am not so good on the science angle, rational logical processing of material and i am much more drawn to the artistic merit and meaning, i like a text to also tie into my story, as if the book is becoming a part of my narrative, thats far easier when it involves or suggests a practice, but sometimes thats not needed, the text itself is brought to life in the imagination where it goes to work if the book is well written.

Its in all probability the presentation of meaning as truth that fascinates me, that any text written or spoken provides enough structure to create and contain a greater meaning than the parts it is assembled from and form a relationship to the reader is in a very simple way astounding.

It seems to me that it is very easy to focus on the parts that assemble a dialogue or monologue and disassemble it into its constituent components, what gets me is the meaning, what the author means to me, there work and how that relates to the whole of the interconnected meanings i currently contain. The book or speaker is then in a very personal relationship to me. Its this sense of commonality and relationship that is important, a mutual understanding of sympathy and respect of difference.

A simple place i begin with is the sound of the voice i am reading the text to myself with, the accent , the tone. Sometimes that is informed by the time the book was written in, the author and other factors, but it also changes with my feelings. I also sometimes think that certain books speak with a voice of there own as if other knowledge is being imparted through the reading. Much of this could easily be self suggestion or imaginative perception, it gives the text a life outside of the print and a meaning which is what the author is, a living human experience.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
14:00 / 23.01.08
Rex

The fact v fiction divide isn't something that necessarily bothers me (see this post for reference, in particular the Iser article on The Signifcance of Fictionalising) although I think it's fair to say that if I find a text (regardless of whether it's fiction, factual or somewhere in between) to be emotionally/intellectually compelling then I'm more likely to view it favourably - something that seems to bear out my established ideas/beliefs and aspirations at that particular moment. I'm thinking of Dion Fortune here - whose "fiction" I've found to be much more inspirational (i.e in so far as it inspired me to go out and do stuff) than her "factual" occult writing.

But anyhow, Kenneth Grant. When I first read Kenny in the late '70s, I probably managed to get through the entirety of the first of the "Typhoonian Trilogies" what really understanding much of what he was saying in any depth - in fact I'd probably say the same about any in-depth occult text that used big words, weird phraseology and a great deal of declarative statements - that their very incomprehensibility seems to be part of what makes them compelling. Grant's interesting because of the way that he does pull in assertions from all over the place - i.e. Lovecraft, gematria-established linkages between disparate concepts, not to mention those lovely little footnotes that say things like: * initiated Kaula adept commentary. Regardless of where he's getting his material from, he writes in a very assertive way, particularly when he is giving forth the "initiated" perspective. Yet at the same time, he does state from time to time, that his works are not to be read as "practical" texts and he does drop the occasional hint to the effect that he believes there to be a big difference between writing about magic and the doing of it.

Checking over old threads relating to KG I stumbled on this post again in which I opine that Grant's not intending his readers to read him literally but rather, to foster a particular ambience. Of course many people do take him literally and time was when you couldn't open some occult magazines without seeing articles which consisted mainly of quotes from KG and little else.

But thinking about Grant (although he's just an example really) brings me to a further point which I think is germane to this thread - which is what causes us to begin to challenge an author's work? So for example, when I first read Grant (I think in Nightside of Eden) drawing an explicit parallel between Lilith and Lalita, I probably just passed over it, not really being in a position to have an opinion. Nowadays, I'd be much more inclined to say "Hang on a mo' how d'yer make that one out?" Similarly, when KG starts (again, in Nightside) going on about "...the blasphemy of the homosexual formula" I probably went through a stage of being confused but subordinate to perceived authority ("does he mean sex between men is bad if you're a magician? Oh dear...") to eventually thinking "what a load of bollocks" because this was much more of an issue for me (at that time) than how Grant makes a connection between Lalita and Lilith.

So I guess, in answer to your original question, yes I would say you can critically read Grant's work. I think I'd now find it difficult not to. But a great deal would depend on from what point of view you're approaching his work. If say, you want to investigate what for you, makes Grant's writing so compelling, then subjecting his style & writing patterns to critical analysis could be very fruitful.
 
 
EvskiG
16:02 / 23.01.08
"Critically reading" occult texts - what's involved?

For better or worse, a good portion of my job involves trying to figure out whether and to what extent I can trust what a given writer or witness is saying, and whether, regardless of a statement's possible falsity or ambiguity, it's still worth considering.

And, for better or worse, that's leaked into my reading of occult texts -- and all other texts. Here are a few things I tend to keep in mind:

* Who is the author?

What do I know about the author?
What do I know about the author's biases?
What knowledge or experience does the author claim to have on this subject?
Do I have any reason to believe or disbelieve any or all of these claims?
What do other sources suggest about whether the author has knowledge or experience on this subject?

* What does the text say?

Does the author claim to relate facts?
Are they facts about the real world?
Are they facts about the spiritual realm?
Are they facts about the psychological realm?
Are they facts about his or her personal experiences?
Are they provable or disprovable?
What evidence, if any, does he or she provide?
Is that evidence convincing?
What evidence, if any, should the author be able to provide if what he or she says is true?

Does the author appear to be writing in code or metaphor?
Do I understand that code or metaphor?
If not, is there some key I can use to understand it?

Could I be misinterpreting the text?
Could there be multiple interpretations of the text?

* What is the basis for the author's statements?

Personal experience?
If so, real world experience? Dreams? Intuition?
Hearsay (essentially, something read or heard second-hand)?
Speculation?

What authorities, if any, does the author use as support?
How credible are those authorities?

Are there reasons to believe or disbelieve what the author is saying?
Do other works support or undermine what the author is saying?

Does it seem likely that the author is lying?
Does it seem likely that the author is deluded?
Does it seem likely that the author is mistaken?

* Based on my own knowledge and experience, is it likely that what this person said is true?

* Even if it isn't likely to be true, is it still worth considering?

And on and on . . .
 
 
Psyche
19:37 / 30.03.08
I wrote a little about this a few months ago. I won't repost the entire thing here, but to summarize:

  • Read indiscriminately. Meaning, read more than just occult books. Broaden your standard frame of reference, widen your horizons. Don't be guilty of tunnel vision.

  • Engage. Don't speed-read. Take the time to pause, mull things over, consider points. Check against your own experience.

  • Read critically. Don't just highlight passages you agree with; note places where you disagree, or where you find you don't understand what the author is trying to say. Read for subtext; what’s said but not written.

  • Acquiring an understanding of the material is critical. This does not equate to agreeing with a given text, but it does involve being able to discuss points with an intelligence demonstrating reflective thought rather than parroting.


Just a few thoughts.
 
 
Z. deScathach
06:19 / 01.04.08
I always seem to be away when the most intersting threads appear. Glad this one came up from the depths.

I view occult text as more of a message than anything else. It never seems to amaze me as to how a book will start calling to me, sometimes after many years. I'm now reading Dr. Glenn Morris' "Pathnotes of an American Ninja Master", and it's telling me just what I need to hear. I had that book for three years before reading it in earnest.

As far as the other books that I've read, one's that haven't seem to have a "calling", the one thing that speaks to me the most is the issue of "depth". You can just sort of tell whether the author has been down "the pike" or not. There's a lot of vapid, new agey stuff out there that basically has the depth of a shallow puddle after a summer sprinkle, and reading them has the feeling of eating a meal with empty calories.

Thing is, I usually don't have that problem with a text that is screaming, "READ ME!" I can always bet that they are there for a reason, and have something important that I need to learn.

In terms of critique, depth is usually the issue. When I first got into magick, each book was new and exciting. Now, there are damn few that fit the bill.
 
 
Digital Hermes
18:42 / 03.04.08
Over my occupation and my education, I'm geared towards taking in media critically. A lot of it has to do with time. I've got a limited amount, so if I'm taking in information, I want to ensure it's of a quality... vintage, if that makes sense.

I recently read Carroll's Liber Kaos, and couldn't help but approach it critically. On one hand, I think he's made a very interesting attempt to reconcile the quantum theories that were developing at his time of writing; on the other hand, he makes leaps from a quantum theory to saying 'therefore magic works' a few times, which is frustrating. That said, the bare bones of his ideas are interesting, and rigorous enough in their logic that I don't feel it's descended into tautologies.

At a certain point, the acceptance that you are reading a text that is focused on the occult, paranormal, or otherwise kooky, means that you've already chosen to accept that viewpoint. That said, that's the only critical inch I'm willing to give!

The difficulty with occult writing is that it also has to deal with personal gnosis or interpretation from the author. I find the texts most inscrutable to be the ones in which the author may or may not have become illuminated, but they've done little or no work connecting to the world the rest of us live in.

Sorry for sporadic thoughts. The thread interests me greatly, so hopefully I'll have a more cogent response sooner!
 
 
Suffocate
12:02 / 06.04.08
I completely agree with Psyche; a good human will read anything - even though we're always tainted by some kind of bias. The key is not to be caught up in thinking about the bias, and instead to focus upun being critical of everything that we read.

As you stated, you're keenly aware of your motivations for reading the book, and that's a very admirable thing; very few people are willing to admit why they chose a particular author or book. "I liked the cover" or "They seemed to agree with my world-view" are usual answers... but as true chaos magic, punk, and experience informs us: trust no one.

You criticially read occult texts by selecting them without bias, by reading them with a completely critical eye, by trying out the ideas that they suggest, and by researching absolutely everything that they mention. If they refer to Dr John Dee's discovery that urine makes the heart grow fonder... then... erm, nevermind. Although, that WAS a good night...

Sorry, forgotten my argument.

*cough*

As you were...
 
 
Neville Barker
23:53 / 23.04.08
I know I'm locked into something critically when it bleeds off into every part of my life, such as my dreams or my writings. For me, this is how I absorb, understand and reposition myself with or without the ideas coming in at the eye. The aforementioned idea that various texts impart their knowledge in different ways is something I marveled at when first I noticed it. It took some time, but I think Burroughs was the one who taught me how to read 'texts' most critically - ironically enough with his fiction. By putting so many damn infectious ideas beneath his 'novels' he showed me the art of understanding what is beneath the words and phrases.

Obviously, some things are to be read astutely, others not so much. For me Trouser's poetry example was spot on - tiny morsels that act as seeds rather than lengthy, interwoven textual journeys. Probably for me though the biggest problem these days is mastering the impatience I've come to display toward so many new texts out there.

It has become harder and harder for me to take these newer, or 'recent' occult texts seriously. As so many others here have already stated, when I first began reading magickal texts there was so much that struck me as eye-opening or important: many of the books I chose explained some of the things that were happening to me or sparked off ideas in my mind that helped me think about where I was headed, what I was looking for and how to go about things, if you will. Now it seems that a lot of those ideas have been pilfered off into pop-culture intellectualism. I understand this may be the wave of fruition for these authors, who may be magicians themselves (and probably in some cases not even realize it), but overall I feel snobby toward it. The example of the old school divisions of 'high' and 'low' magick are biases I have ever agreed with or adopted before, but somehow they now feel warranted (yeah, I'm aware they probably did back then too).

I guess you could say the 'critical reading' feels as though it can be done just from observing the nature of books and the vehicles bringing us those books. As others here have previously asserted, 'reading' involves more than just opening a book and ingesting it's innards - other factors precede this if we are truly being critical. Others here have mentioned the authors' reputations, avenues of recommendation, etc. Now I ask you to think of another aspect of this.

Walk into a book store and look around - people have made millions in the publishing business reiterating the same concepts continuously. I work in a book store and can tell you the business section contains concepts and instruction from all manner of occult reference. So does the self help. While I realize this is what ideas are for - better yet what they actually are, it makes me suspicious when new books hit the stands - how much that is published is just re-wordings of popular or successful theory. The layers to the Universe and the way it works (not to mention the way we work) are endless, so where are the new ideas? Reading critically often makes me not want to read 'occult' at all - I'd rather write for hours, rehearsing ideas and concepts and see where that takes me than encounter another seeker, master or adept displaying their ambience and elocution of authority and enlightenment. It used to seem par for the course in 'new age' but just as the example has been made that 'goth' is the new 'rock' (trite terms I know, but bear with me for the purpose of example por favor), ie one solidified image to sell, so to is the occult, magickal and arcane the new 'new age'. You can see it in the constant repackaging of the ideas that originally sprung from those texts I think of as foundations - Carroll, Crowley, AOS, RAW, Hine.

Surely my suspiscion of corporate marketing can get in the way sometimes, but its hard not to walk into a book store these days looking for anything other than fiction* and feel marketed to to the point that I get turned off and cranky. It might be different in those off chances that I run into some little place sequestered away in the middle of nowhere with a name I've never heard before and books from floor to ceiling, but unfortunately there's not too many of those around any more and none by me at present.

Tangent, yes. Relative, me thinks so.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
11:56 / 25.04.08
Of course it seems that all the "new" stuff may be rehashing all the "classic" occult literature, but alot of the "Classics" were at one time new... And disrespected as such. Such is the nature of snobbery.
Rehashing old ideas may not be a bad thing, even if they're poorly written: It may inspire someone nonetheless. They reintroduce a new generation to occult thought.
I had not read an "Occult" book in quite a few years until I stumbled on Disinformation's The Book of Lies anthology. It seriously reintroduced me to a meme I had given up on because I had only been familiar with dated and seemingly irrelevant "classic" occult literature. Metzger et al. made me realise that there are people still practicing, still "on the cutting edge". If it weren't for that book, I would have never read The Invisibles, never researched AOS, or have learned the influence of Gysin on Burroughs and their workings together. Disinfo had a great follow-up with Generation Hex, which I am positive will ripple through time.
Even trashy "literature" such asThe Celestine Prophesy or The Secret has merit, because there are people who will read it and decide to scratch through the surface to find something more constructive. How often has a book led to a book which has led to a book, and so on...?
That being said, I suggest taking any "occult" book which promises "Money, Love, & Health" (Usually in that order) with a bucketload of salt...
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:10 / 25.04.08
Disinfo had a great follow-up with Generation Hex, which I am positive will ripple through time.

God, I hope not...
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
19:16 / 25.04.08
Gypsy:
I think that at least half was well written, and more importantly, it should serve to inspire. The best thing about this anthology is that it's telling young magickians to go out and do their own thing, that there's not "one true path" to follow. I agree that some of the stuff is dross, but there's some gold to be found, as well.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:14 / 26.04.08
At one time I would have gone along with the gateway-drug model of crap magic books, but I'm not so sure now.

I don't like The Secret because the whole premise seems smug and blame-the-victimy. Never mind the circumstances of your life, you could be happy and successful if you just WANTED it badly enough.* And books like The Celestine Prophesy don't really seem to take people anywhere except on to the next book about Mayan prophesies etc., rather than into a more in-depth, in-context exploration of the Eastern philosophies sketched around in the book. (Also, I got really sick of sitting in pub moots in the mid-90s and hearing ad nauseum about how it was OMG ALL TRUE. I realise this is totally my issue, not the book's.)

In general, I found that I picked up a lot of weak ideas from the texts that I had access to when I was younger. Some of these have taken me an awfully long time to shake off, and they have certainly had a negative effect on my practice. What seemed to happen with me, and what I see happening with others, is that the books read at the beginning of one's career create your initial mental construction regarding what magic is and how it works. If there's a workable frame in there that you can build on and refigure adaptively, great.

The thing is, though, that flexibility is often not available via many commercially-available texts. May of them tend to be rather absolutist and rigid. In my case the rigidity came mostly from a lot of moralising about "high" and "low," "black" and "white" magic; rigid assertions of certain models as fundamentally real and incontrovertable, rather than best-fit descriptions of subjectively experienced processes; and counterfactual or ill-supported information being presented as self-evident and universally accepted truths that must be embraced by the practitioner for anything to happen at all.

Initially this was what pushed me into chaos magic--it seemed refreshingly undogmatic and infinately flexible. However I have come to find that some of the underpinnings of chaos magic theory are not a good fit for my own experiences, and have witnessed people stagnating in their practices as a result of taking too much to heart certain assumptions that have become ingrained in current chaos-magic thought.





*My cellar-dwellers want to track the authors of books like that down and plaaayyyy with them, whilst mumuring softly "it's all your fault... it's all your own fault..." I try not to listen to the cellar-dwellers too much, but on this one I find myself wondering if they don't rather have a point.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
12:18 / 28.04.08
Way back when I read "the Celestine Prophesy", I remember being very pissed how formulaic it was: Hero is taught a lesson. Hero is too skeptical, doesn't believe. Hero is shown practical application of lesson. Hero finally believes. Repeat.
Every. Bloody. Chapter.
I agree. It was horribly written, simplistic, consumerist tripe. The way Redfield had to drive home each and every idea felt like he was brainwashing us through repetition. Like the US government: repeat something enough...

Yet... It still gave me a good (and for me, new) concept on how to handle synchronicity. It's the only thing I really remember, or took from the whole thing, but it's served me well. When I came upon the importance of Synchronicity in later reading, I had a "primer" and was already comfortable with the concept.

As stated in the subject of this thread, it's all about reading critically. I believe that as long as the reader does not buy completely into a single book or Idea, these crap, "Pop Metaphysical" tracts can indeed become a "gateway" to more "Serious" works. It depends on the will and intelligence of the reader, and how well they separate wheat from chaff.

I think that if you cross-reference this thread with the "What Got You Into Magic" thread, you'll find that many people only had access to mainstream pap when they first stepped on their paths, but they kept digging...

It's all a part of self initiation, I think.
 
  
Add Your Reply