Drawing Lines: Magical Tribalism

by Alan Chapman on 2008-06-17 08:22:52
tags: chaos magic, tribalism, western mystery tradition

When I was habitually off my face on cannabis and LSD as a youngster, I found my magical centre of gravity in the postmodern corpus of the professionally challenged publishing houses New Falcon Publications and Samuel Weiser, more specifically the works of Robert Anton Wilson and Peter Carroll. The postmodern ethos reflected my experience of psychedelics: all-embracing, non-hierarchical, unifying, liberating and non-judgemental. The universe was a kaleidoscope of novelty, and limitations were simply an illusion indulged by ‘robots’ i.e. everyone else who had never tried acid, smoked a joint or conjured a demon.   

My previous consideration of magick as a system for progressing through a number of ‘grades’ to attain God status, courtesy of Crowley, seemed embarrassingly imperialist and pre-postmodern in light of Chaos magic. Linear development, headache-inducing yoga and overly academic ritual were replaced with the immediacy of trance and somatic experiences provided by ‘gnosis’ – a catch-all term for any trance state induced through a seemingly endless list of fun activities, most notably sex and drugs.

Why ponce about in robes when I could be a stoned wanker?

A few years later however and the novelty was wearing off: the bliss provided by drugs faded in direct proportion to the increasing length of the comedowns, stationery had lost its sex-appeal after one too many sigils, and for all my ‘gnosis’ I was still neurotic, ignorant, aimless and even more alienated from my peers.

However, it was obvious magic worked, so I stepped up my game and began practising what I had neglected, namely: ritual and meditation. I also went looking for fellow magicians, joined a practical magical order, and discovered the many diverse threads of magical practice woven together in the rich tapestry of the Western Occult Community, such as Heathenism, Buddhism, Wicca, Tantra, Santeria, Chaos magic and Thelema. It seemed obvious to my liberated postmodern mind that although expressed in unique symbols and terminology, all of these traditions shared a common technique (the use of trance, sorcery, deity work, etc) and goal (the practical transformation of the self and its environment). No one tradition was ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any other beyond the relative usefulness of that tradition in providing personal satisfaction to the magician. The postmodern occult scene was unified in making the world a better place, with shared values such as equality, individualism, non-judgementalism and pragmatism, with zero tolerance of prejudice, hierarchy, and cultural imperialism. Every approach was equal, valid and something to be respected. After all, we were all practising the same thing in essence, right?

Strange Fruit

A few years ago, I began to notice something strange occurring as a result of my magical practice. Although magical development is well recognised in the magical community, usually along the lines of improvement in technique and the deepening of relationship with various aspects of human experience (usually through working with Deity), I began to experience certain progressive results that did not sit comfortably under those areas of development.

First of all, I progressed from experiencing synchronicity as a peak experience (when synchronicity occurs as a magical result), to synchronicity as a plateau experience (when magical results begin to occur without doing the actual magic), to synchronicity as a permanent adaptation (my universe had become completely meaningful – I like to call this type of development ‘the prophetic narrative’, as it relates directly to the viewing the world in terms of synchronicity as opposed to causality). No tradition or magical text had prepared me for this, apart from a passing mention of the phenomenon of magical results occurring just by thought alone (which is synchronicity as a plateau experience) in Liber Kaos by Peter Carroll, where the reader is advised to ignore it!

Also, my ability to experience trance states (usually called ‘gnosis’) as a result of entheogens and concentration practice had also improved, to the point where I could now enter trance at will. In these states I could experience visions, union with a given focus, a feeling of unity with existence and even the dissolution of my body. Experience showed that rather than there being a number of trance states, there was in fact only one phenomenon, which could be practised, developed and intensified: the magician could become ‘absorbed’ by any focus, given practice and the right scripting. I find the term ‘absorption state’ more descriptive than ‘gnosis’, not least because the latter was rather inappropriately snaffled from Gnosticism by (let’s face it) naïve reductionists.

So far I’ve mentioned four lines of development (or initiation, if you like) that although not necessarily unrelated exhibit distinct characteristics: technique, deity work, the prophetic narrative, and absorption states.

In addition to these, I stumbled upon a fifth: fundamental insight into the nature of reality. The popular Western view would actually equate this with gnosis, or maybe even deity work, but there is a concrete difference. I first came across this practice in Theravada Buddhism (see Daniel Ingram’s superb Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha), where insight is considered a process that occurs with recognisable milestones as a result of cycling through what are called ‘the Insight stages’. As is usually the case in occultism, this process is actually found in more than one tradition: see also Platonism (Plato’s The Republic); Christian Mysticism (St. Teresa of Avila’s The Interior Castle, The Cloud of Unknowing, and Father Thomas Keating’s Centred Prayer tradition); Alchemy; Rosicrucianism; and, to my complete surprise, Aleister Crowley’s A.’.A.’. grading system! (This isn’t an exhaustive list, just the main traditions I’ve come across that provide a model of this process.)

Fundamental insight into the nature of reality is usually called ‘enlightenment’ by these teachings, and it is a separate phenomenon from absorption states in the sense that insight doesn’t occur in some kind of tranced-out nirvana that can be entered and exited at will, but as a result of cycling through a number of stages that culminates in a permanent end to the tendency to identify with sensations that we normally believe constitute a ‘self’. Whereas deity work is the deepening of knowledge and experience of the mysteries of various ‘fields of experience’, as exemplified by the gods and goddesses of a given pantheon, fundamental insight into the nature of reality is concerned with insight that is above and beyond experience itself. Concentration practice, entheogens, sorcery and deity work do not necessarily engage this process, whereas Vipassana, Centred Prayer, Self Enquiry and gaining the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, when performed correctly, most certainly do.

My practice and its results were teaching me a valuable lesson: human experience is more complex, rich and mysterious than the grossly simplistic and vague views of ‘magical development’ and ‘gnosis as enlightenment’ could possibly account for. The image of occultism presented by the likes of The Invisibles as some glorious, psychedelic melting-pot of shared experience was looking naïve.

I’m sure there are many other lines of development I’ve not mentioned or even encountered yet – I’ve simply outlined the most significant I’ve come across in my limited experience.

The Great Work

I was quite excited by my apparent findings, as I suddenly had a completely new lens through which to view our rich magical heritage. Instead of seeing every tradition, practice and teaching as commensurate, it now seemed obvious that some traditions excelled at certain lines of development more than others. Might I now have something to learn from traditions I once considered as ‘same old shit, different gods’?

More importantly, my realisation of many lines of development brought to the fore the wonderful legacy of my own tradition of Western Magick, and what it had to offer beyond the gross reductionism of Chaos magic.

Magick, more specifically the practice of surrender to the Holy Guardian Angel and the initiatory development presented by the A.’.A.’. grading system, offers a complete teaching for development of the fifth line: fundamental insight into the nature of reality (amongst other lines, of course). All this time I’d believed that concentration practice - or the resulting absorption state - was the key to enlightenment, when it was actually to be found in ritual magick. Enlightenment isn’t a state, but a process made up of stages. Suddenly, those obscure concepts once considered antiquated Victorian elitist mumbo-jumbo, such as ‘crossing the abyss’ and ‘the Great Work’, became lucid in light of my personal experience with the HGA, and through cross-referencing my findings with Theravada Buddhism. Enlightenment became a very real, specific, concrete and attainable goal, available to everyone, right here and now. To grossly oversimplify, the daily practice of surrender to the Holy Guardian Angel will lead to ‘crossing the abyss’ (the first time through the insight cycle) and a steady progression through the three ‘grades’ of the A.’.A.’. that reside above the abyss. The ‘attainment’ of the grade of Ipsissimus, the final milestone, marks the completion of the Great Work, or success in achieving enlightenment.

Wow.

And this is where things got ugly.

Magical Tribalism

Spurred on by this apparent growth in magical experience and insight, I jumped at the chance to share my excitement with my fellow Brothers and Sisters within the magical community.

Let’s just say I was naive.

We have a lot to thank postmodernism for, especially in light of its contribution towards a more free and tolerant world. But despite the apparent ubiquity of postmodernism within popular culture (especially within popular occult literature), postmodern thought is easily misunderstood, and good examples of it are hard to come by. For instance, contextualism – the idea that there are many contexts, and so no one context is privileged in and of itself – is more often than not confused with the idea that all contexts are of equal merit. Such a viewpoint is extreme postmodernism – a tragic mindset, not peculiar only to the Chaos magician, but endemic within the magical community at large. In a culture infected with such confusion, any attempt at elucidating the possible difference and individual merits of a tradition is to invalidate the ‘level-playing field’ of extreme postmodernism. To claim ‘your tradition is not the same as mine’ can easily be perceived as an attack on the tradition in question and its cultural origins, and the ‘politically correct’ are quick to spit allegations of racism and prejudice in the face of the offender.

I need to be careful here, because I’m not defending the racism and prejudice that is just as much a part of the magical community as any other scene; but it is a tragedy if we let a few confused individuals, both racists and extreme postmodernists, obstruct healthy and rigorous interrogation of our magical practice and its results.

The extreme postmodern attitude has led to a rather bizarre situation: by treating all traditions, cultures or contexts as sacred and equally valid, any criticism or interrogation from outside a given context is simply unacceptable. Of course, this can be seen occurring within Western society at large, but it more specifically manifests within the occult community as magical tribalism. Whereas with Chaos magic the concept of ‘meta-belief’ took precedence - an overarching view based on the apparent similarities between traditions - we now have the inviolable nature of tradition itself as our main concern, thanks to the current political climate. In other words, extreme postmodernism posits that because we are different, WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER.

So much for equality!

Because discernment is prohibited when it comes to magical tradition, the extreme postmodernist lumps all teachings together into one homogenous magical mess. (The Great Work of Western Magick? Yes, we’re all doing it!. The pujas of Tantra? Yeah, same thing as evocation in Chaos magic!) A cursory investigation of the occult scene makes one thing obvious: the various lines of development I’ve mentioned are more often than not confused and very specific terminology from very specific teachings are misappropriated and considered open to individual interpretation.

In a magical world where we’re all accustomed to getting our own way, whenever and wherever we want it, the idea that our opinions might be completely wrong, that we have been barking up the wrong tree for a long time, that magical development is directly related to the amount of work put in and the type of practice performed, and that we might have something to learn from (gasp!) someone more experienced, can be very hard to swallow.

But I’m sick of being told that enlightenment can mean many things; all it takes is study of the source material, from any of the traditions I mentioned earlier, to see it is a specific term for a specific phenomenon. I’m tired of hearing how a teenager’s mind-bending experience on mushrooms is somehow commensurate with and just as valid as a meditative insight hard-won through years of magical and meditative practice. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit back and allow the purpose, practice and goal of magick to be misappropriated, misrepresented, and lost in the supposed postmodern melting-pot of the occult scene.

Despite our best ‘politically correct’ intentions, magical tribalism and extreme postmodern narcissism have drawn lines between traditions and divided our community, resulting in confusion, bad practice and the false belief that genuine understanding between traditions is not possible. In light of this, is it still acceptable to bury our heads in the sand and pretend our traditions are all the same, and that there really is no difference between the Voudonist and Buddhist?

No – the lines won’t go away, despite our best intentions, but we can redraw them; isn’t it time we made our lines developmental, instead of divisive?

submit to blinklist submit to del.icio.us submit to digg diigo it submit to disinfo submit to fark submit to furl submit to google bookmarks submit to ma.gnolia Add to Mixx! submit to newsvine submit to propeller submit to reddit submit to simpy submit to spurl submit to stumble upon submit to tailrank submit to yahoo bookmarks

Comments

Great article. Comment more later.

by shivainexile on 2008-06-19 09:14:14

Thanks!

Come on then – where are these comments?

by Alan on 2008-06-26 08:50:58

Brilliant article Alan, and has helped me considerably in clearing up and making certain issues I found in post modern Magick confusing. The charting of your magical progress from chaos back to the source material is enlightening in itself(no pun intended), my experience was similar, and even though I think the work of the early chaos magicians is still important, and was very much needed at the time, I soon got lost in a reductionist ‘soup’ of confusion, even though I thought I was being very cool and postmodern. The tribalism in the magick scene is doing Magick no good at all, totally agree with you on that one aswell, I realise now that the traditions can have similarities, but are not exactly the same , especially the east and western approaches. I got ‘into’(for want of a better word) Magick originally to try and transform self and mind, yes sorcery does work, is beneficial up to a point, but what then…and as for the drugs, totally agree, ended up a disordered trip around my subconscious! resulting in burn out. Clarity is the mark of an enlightened mind, and if I may pay you a compliment, you have it in bundles in your writings, thanks again for a great article. Gerry.

by Gerry on 2008-07-04 12:52:43

My pleasure Gerry, glad it helped.

by Alan on 2008-07-05 13:04:40

Not knowing a great deal about practical Magick, since I’m just sniffing my way around the antechamber (so to speak), I don’t feel qualified to go much further than offer thanks for the insight…really

You should chill out though man, enlightenment CAN mean many things. Everyone’s at a different level, and on a different path, there are those practitioners (you may well be one of them) that should be exploring the developmental instead of divisive (in and between all traditions), but those guys know who they are and certainly don’t need any help.
All things in their place, and time…take what resonates with you and leave the rest…

by adma_varde on 2008-07-07 04:41:23

‘You should chill out though man, enlightenment CAN mean many things.’

According to whom? Not according to the Hindus it doesn’t. Nor the Taoists or Zen masters. In fact, Buddha, Crowley, St. Teresa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Plato, Nagurjuna, Daniel Ingram, Pierre Grimes, Jesus, Rumi, Ken Wilber, Proclus, Alan Wallace, Ramana Maharshi, G.I. Gurdjieff, Father Thomas Keating and every other teacher of enlightenment to have graced the surface of this planet have all claimed enlightenment means one very specific thing.

Can you give an example of an alternative meaning for enlightenment beyond what any of the teachers I’ve mentioned above have offered?

‘Everyone’s at a different level, and on a different path’

What level of development are you talking about here, and what model are using to make this judgement? I’m a Western magician, as are many of my friends – is this not the same path? You can also consider me an anagami, and I know at least one other. That means we’re on the same level in terms of fundamental insight into the nature of reality. We all benefit from sharing our experiences of the same path and developmental level (such as within the Therevada model in terms of the anagami status). Saying we’re all unique and special sounds very much like saying we’re all equal, and so we can’t really say anything about each other.

‘there are those practitioners (you may well be one of them) that should be exploring the developmental instead of divisive (in and between all traditions), but those guys know who they are and certainly don’t need any help.’

Why do you believe this to be true? What personal direct experience has informed such a view, what injunction can I perform to corroborate your statement and what tradition, teaching or model promotes this idea?

I couldn’t disagree more in terms of needing help. I know a hell of a lot less now than when I began development in any of the lines I mention in the article. There are people that have gone through all of this stuff before me and knowledge of what to expect or a sympathetic ear during difficult stages of development (such as the Dukkha Nanas) is indispensible. I need all the help I can get.

‘All things in their place, and time…take what resonates with you and leave the rest…’

Said like a true postmodernist. What exactly do you mean by ‘resonance’? To what extent does hard work and unpleasant experience ‘resonate’ with anyone (those two are guaranteed for anyone who wants to make genuine development in any endeavour)?

Is the only criterion for belonging to a tradition conscious deliberation, an exercise in occult consumerism?

by Alan on 2008-07-07 10:31:42

“According to whom? Not according to the Hindus it doesn’t. Nor the Taoists or Zen masters. In fact, Buddha, Crowley, St. Teresa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Plato, Nagurjuna, Daniel Ingram, Pierre Grimes, Jesus, Rumi, Ken Wilber, Proclus, Alan Wallace, Ramana Maharshi, G.I. Gurdjieff, Father Thomas Keating and every other teacher of enlightenment to have graced the surface of this planet have all claimed enlightenment means one very specific thing.
Can you give an example of an alternative meaning for enlightenment beyond what any of the teachers I’ve mentioned above have offered?”

Firstly…Wow! You’re a fun one

According to whom? According to every person who interprets their existence through a filter of the sum of their individual experiences to date…so…everyone I guess :). Your understanding of enlightenment (as defined by your exhaustive list of masters and others) is based on your current level of development, and will be very different to my, or anyone else’s, understanding of those same definitions, not because the definition is imperfect, but because we are. The fact that enlightenment is, and has a specific objective definition, was never in question here; you’re talking about what is, I’m talking about what is possible. What I said, is that it CAN (note the caps) mean many different things, the obvious subtext of course being the idea that any concept will mean different things, to different people, depending on their background, understanding, and level of development (mental/mystical/or otherwise)…which I stand by. My respect for the various masters’ various definitions notwithstanding, the experience of enlightenment cannot ever be truly expressed in words, only experienced by the individual…in light of this I shan’t offer an alternate meaning as it would be a moot point, I have my understanding as you do yours.

“What level of development are you talking about here, and what model are using to make this judgement? I’m a Western magician, as are many of my friends – is this not the same path? You can also consider me an anagami, and I know at least one other. That means we’re on the same level in terms of fundamental insight into the nature of reality. We all benefit from sharing our experiences of the same path and developmental level (such as within the Therevada model in terms of the anagami status). Saying we’re all unique and special sounds very much like saying we’re all equal, and so we can’t really say anything about each other.”

For want of a better term I suppose that evolutionary (or incarnationary) development will suffice, but again the interpretation of the term is subject to your experience and background, so for the sake of context, I mean this in terms of soul evolution rather than material. As they are limiting by definition, I use no model to make my judgement other than my intuition and experience, as do we all at the end of the day, and the only “model” (which is not an accurate description) I could be said to make use of is that of the Holy Qabalah (applied in this context as a method of classification and association).

We quibble over terms it would seem, so allow me to clarify what I mean by path. You are a western magician, as are many of your friends, for the purposes of this example let’s call this the same discipline. You are also an Anagami, and you know at least one other, let’s call this the same stage (or state) within another discipline. These we can classify as paths at a group level, but at an individual level the path is that pattern which emerges based on your wanderings back and forth through the earthly experience options available, and the choices you make as a result. I agree that at the group level we all benefit from sharing our experiences within a given path (discipline). In relation to the individual path though, this is only useful until the particular discipline has outlived its usefulness, then the individual leaves this nest and continues on his path. For instance, you mentioned your experience with revealing your new magical understanding to your Chaos Magician colleagues:

“Spurred on by this apparent growth in magical experience and insight, I jumped at the chance to share my excitement with my fellow Brothers and Sisters within the magical community.
Let’s just say I was naive.”

What I’m getting at is that they did not become “confused individuals, both racists and extreme postmodernists” in your mind until, via an illumination, you had outgrown what that school of thought could offer you; your path has now diverged from theirs – leading into the idea of your path. The fact that you have outgrown a thing however does not render that thing invalid, that method of thought is a part of your path and without it you would not have advanced. Because now, you have cast it off and continued on your path (as have countless others before you), does not mean others have not yet reached the stage where it can be of use to them on their path.

“Saying we’re all unique and special sounds very much like saying we’re all equal, and so we can’t really say anything about each other…” The alternative of course, being that we can say anything we like about each other, but that’s not the point is it? I wonder where it is you get the idea that saying “we’re all unique and special” sound’s anything like “we’re all equal”.

“Why do you believe this to be true? What personal direct experience has informed such a view, what injunction can I perform to corroborate your statement and what tradition, teaching or model promotes this idea?
I couldn’t disagree more in terms of needing help. I know a hell of a lot less now than when I began development in any of the lines I mention in the article. There are people that have gone through all of this stuff before me and knowledge of what to expect or a sympathetic ear during difficult stages of development (such as the Dukkha Nanas) is indispensible. I need all the help I can get.”

You have already mentioned the masters, the HGA, and levels of attainment within Buddhism, so clearly you are familiar with the ideas of hierarchy and levels of attainment. Do you think that a structure or principle so prevalent in parts of creation do not permeate the whole? I have had no direct experience and there is no injunction, although if I had, or there was, I wouldn’t be very worthy of the knowledge if I were here bragging about it to make a point. Some things you just have to take on Faith at first, fortunately faith does not have to be the blind leap that it is expounded as, but rather can be built upon gradually. Most schools / traditions / teachings I have come into contact with, particularly esoteric schools, promote the idea of a “white lodge” or equivalent, which is consistent with the concept of the HGA, which is this same idea on a higher level (arc). In light of this I ask again – Do you think that a structure / principle so prevalent in parts of creation would not permeate the whole?

I agree with you completely, if you believe you need help you do, the reason I have little understanding of the craft is that I have not found my teacher yet. I would never encourage you, or anyone, to forgo the experience of those who have gone before you. Thus the phrase “those guys know who they are…”. I was only attempting to illustrate the idea that there are practitioners who should be exploring the developmental; I didn’t say that you are one of them (I just haven’t ruled that out). What I was driving at is that there are initiates / adepts / masters who are no longer riding the polarity-coaster and have duties to carry out in the service of humanity; their power exists for this purpose, for the rest of us there is no obligation only love under will.

“Said like a true postmodernist. What exactly do you mean by ‘resonance’? To what extent does hard work and unpleasant experience ‘resonate’ with anyone (those two are guaranteed for anyone who wants to make genuine development in any endeavour)?”

Said like a true postmodernist?.. Why thank you sir, I always enjoy being pigeon-holed by those more open-minded and tolerant than myself, enlightenment must be great. I’m talking about resonance in terms of electromagnetic fields, which all things earthly have, great or small. What I mean by resonates, on an esoteric level is that it (the thing or idea) has the same frequency or vibratory signature as you; and on a personal physical level, it manifests as feeling or intuition, you feel similar, or connected, to it at a basic level. For a time the ideas contained within Chaos magick resonated strongly with you, when your frequency was raised as a result of your aforementioned illumination you were no longer resonating so strongly with these (now lower) resonating ideas and so they held less and less interest for you.

From a personal perspective I can say what you call “hard work” and “unpleasant experience” resonates with me more and more intensely everyday. I do not identify myself with, nor define myself by, any of the schools or orders I am or have been a part of, but I do hold the same ideals as many of them, and foremost among these is the ideal of selfless service to humanity, there can be no real progress without this ideal. I find this a particularly odd question for you to ask as this can be considered the most important part of the great work (outside the ultimate goal), and is the goal of the Rosicrucians, Masons, Qabalists, etc, etc…there is nothing but the appearance of power with out sacrifice and service…

“Is the only criterion for belonging to a tradition conscious deliberation, an exercise in occult consumerism?”

This is a stupid question (no offence, it just really isn’t necessary). You had already covered the idea of your “hard work and unpleasant experience” in the immediately previous line of your response, to which I have devoted adequate recourse. I can only assume that you asked this question as a vehicle for your “exercise in occult consumerism” line, which – yuk yuk – I’ve got to tell you; Not that clever as a finisher…

On an end note, I might hesitantly encourage chilling out again…but then again, considering this reaction, that might be a mistake :) You’ve a sharp mind and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the repartee. I also hope I managed to piss you off a little ;) and look forward to doing it again sometime.

A Hearty Cheers to you Sir,

Adma:)

by adma_varde on 2008-07-10 06:24:19

‘According to whom? According to every person who interprets their existence through a filter of the sum of their individual experiences to date…so…everyone I guess :).’

I suppose you believe this an enlightened postmodern perspective? Sadly, this viewpoint was prevalent millennia ago in Hellenistic Greece, and its adherents were known as Sophists.

The idea that everything is interpreted is a belief that can neither be proven nor disproven. In other words, it’s a prejudice, and has no basis in experience. Consider: to what extent is mathematics interpreted? Brain surgery? Is it not possible to sit an examination on the structure, style, plot, characters, etc of a literary work, and be graded accordingly on accuracy? If someone reading this comment thinks I’m a fan of sophism, wouldn’t we just say they are wrong, mistaken, or stupid?

‘Your understanding of enlightenment (as defined by your exhaustive list of masters and others) is based on your current level of development, and will be very different to my, or anyone else’s, understanding of those same definitions, not because the definition is imperfect, but because we are.’

Besides your sophism, you actually missed my point entirely: not one single master or teacher has ever said enlightenment can mean many different things. They all offer one definition and one teaching to attain that goal. Do you believe your sophism superior?

‘What I said, is that it CAN (note the caps) mean many different things, the obvious subtext of course being the idea that any concept will mean different things, to different people, depending on their background, understanding, and level of development (mental/mystical/or otherwise)…which I stand by.’

Again, I disagree. When the Buddha says perform insight practice everyday and you’ll end up enlightened (neither experiencing grasping nor aversion to sensations as they arise and pass away) I fail to see what bearing my developmental level, cultural background, social circumstance, unique position in space-time, favoured sexual practice, ad nauseam, will have on understanding the injunction.

‘the experience of enlightenment cannot ever be truly expressed in words, only experienced by the individual…in light of this I shan’t offer an alternate meaning as it would be a moot point, I have my understanding as you do yours.’

The experience of eating an apple, taking a shit or watching television can never be truly expressed in words, but that doesn’t mean we can’t define those experiences and take about them in a meaningful way.

‘For want of a better term I suppose that evolutionary (or incarnationary) development will suffice, but again the interpretation of the term is subject to your experience and background, so for the sake of context, I mean this in terms of soul evolution rather than material.’

Let me get this straight – you believe the term evolutionary development ‘will suffice’, then recognising that the term is subject to interpretation, you attempt to elucidate its meaning by providing further terms? Can you not see that this prejudice is making a fool out of you?

‘As they are limiting by definition, I use no model to make my judgement other than my intuition and experience, as do we all at the end of the day, and the only “model” (which is not an accurate description) I could be said to make use of is that of the Holy Qabalah (applied in this context as a method of classification and association).’

Hang on – if all ideas are open to interpretation, how can a model be ‘limiting by definition’? Surely they can mean anything to anyone at any time?

You may not be aware of it, but you do ascribe to a model: namely, each person’s unique soul is on a special journey down a rainbow path of magical events, each one a Sacred instance of spiritual blossoming, with all teachings simultaneously open to interpretation, limiting by definition, relatively useful and completely meaningless.

‘you mentioned your experience with revealing your new magical understanding to your Chaos Magician colleagues:

“Spurred on by this apparent growth in magical experience and insight, I jumped at the chance to share my excitement with my fellow Brothers and Sisters within the magical community.
Let’s just say I was naive.”

What I’m getting at is that they did not become “confused individuals, both racists and extreme postmodernists” in your mind until, via an illumination, you had outgrown what that school of thought could offer you; your path has now diverged from theirs – leading into the idea of your path.’

I’m sorry, but magical insight is not required to spot an extreme postmodernist or a racist. Extreme postmodernism is not a school of thought, nor is it useful in any sense of the word. It is a social phenomenon based on stupidity and confusion. Experience of extreme postmodernism is not a requisite of any tradition that I know of.

‘“Saying we’re all unique and special sounds very much like saying we’re all equal, and so we can’t really say anything about each other…” The alternative of course, being that we can say anything we like about each other, but that’s not the point is it? I wonder where it is you get the idea that saying “we’re all unique and special” sound’s anything like “we’re all equal”.’

Let me alleviate the confusion of your prejudice: if everyone shares the wonderful status of being unique and special, it can be said that everyone is equal in this respect. Being unique and special, everyone’s viewpoint is sacred and everyone’s opinion matters. This is equality – the lifting up of the moron and the dragging down of the genius to a meaningless but thankfully ‘non-offensive’ level playing field.

To be clear, I believe a person’s opinion upon a subject is relevant in direct proportion to their expertise, experience and research in that subject. That’s why we have teachers, why not everyone is allowed to practice brain surgery, build rockets, or fix your plumbing. Why we shouldn’t apply the same thinking to enlightenment is beyond my current soul path understanding.

‘Do you think that a structure / principle so prevalent in parts of creation would not permeate the whole?’

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. In any case, what I meant was why do you believe that someone exploring development does not require help?

‘I was only attempting to illustrate the idea that there are practitioners who should be exploring the developmental; I didn’t say that you are one of them (I just haven’t ruled that out). What I was driving at is that there are initiates / adepts / masters who are no longer riding the polarity-coaster and have duties to carry out in the service of humanity; their power exists for this purpose, for the rest of us there is no obligation only love under will.’

Oh, you’re right on the money there, but I would say your idea of what it means to be enlightened is slightly romantic (I blame Crowley for that). While it can be said that those who have crossed the abyss are consciously aware of their function, it shouldn’t be forgotten that there are many people working for the cause who are not even aware of the role they play.

‘Said like a true postmodernist?.. Why thank you sir, I always enjoy being pigeon-holed by those more open-minded and tolerant than myself, enlightenment must be great.’

You can consider it a soul lesson on your unique path if you like.

‘I do not identify myself with, nor define myself by, any of the schools or orders I am or have been a part of, but I do hold the same ideals as many of them, and foremost among these is the ideal of selfless service to humanity, there can be no real progress without this ideal.’

Sweet.

‘I find this a particularly odd question for you to ask as this can be considered the most important part of the great work (outside the ultimate goal), and is the goal of the Rosicrucians, Masons, Qabalists, etc, etc…there is nothing but the appearance of power with out sacrifice and service…’

I never questioned the nature of the Great Work; I highlighted the fact that hard work isn’t easy and it frequently hurts. Evidently this puts many people off.

“Is the only criterion for belonging to a tradition conscious deliberation, an exercise in occult consumerism?”
This is a stupid question (no offence, it just really isn’t necessary). I can only assume that you asked this question as a vehicle for your “exercise in occult consumerism” line, which – yuk yuk – I’ve got to tell you; Not that clever as a finisher…’

A stupid question? Let’s see what Liber Porta Lucis has to say on the subject:

‘We therefore who are without the chains of ignorance, look closely into the heart of the seeker and lead him by the path which is best suited to his nature unto the ultimate end of all things, the supreme realization, the Life which abideth in Light, yea, the Life which abideth in Light.’

Based on my own experience and that of others I believe in the personally specific metaphysical nature of tradition. A tradition isn’t chosen by personal preference (hence my question about ‘resonance’) or apparent usefulness. Rather, it appears to choose you. Do you find this distasteful?

‘On an end note, I might hesitantly encourage chilling out again…but then again, considering this reaction, that might be a mistake :) You’ve a sharp mind and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the repartee. I also hope I managed to piss you off a little ;) and look forward to doing it again sometime.’

Please don’t mistake my directness for anger. I’m afraid we no longer have time to ‘chill out’ about the Great Work. Thanks for the lengthy response, feel free to keep them coming.

‘A Hearty Cheers to you Sir’

Cheers!

by Alan on 2008-07-10 11:31:41

…And again, wow!

“Thanks for the lengthy response, feel free to keep them coming.”

…no worries, and thank you, I likly will.

I think you might have to wait a bit for any kind of coherent reply though, I’m going to need some time to take all that in. I am painfully aware of the fact that I am new to the work…swaddling babe if you will. But…you don’t learn without climbing out of the comfort-zone, just trusting what you’ve got and throwing it at someone…see what bounces back you know…and hope that whoever you’re embarrassing yourself in front of is not too hard on you. In this regard your response is greatly appreciated, you’ve supplied a good deal of food for thought…hope I don’t choke :)

Cheers,

Adma

by adma_varde on 2008-07-10 23:24:22

Hey, the prejudice I highlighted in your response is endemic within the occult community, so don’t take it to heart!

I wasn’t being sarcastic when I applauded your conviction in pursuing the ideal of selfless service to humanity. For a beginner, you’re already miles ahead many seasoned occultists in that respect.

I look forward to hearing from you in the future!

All the best,

Alan.

by Alan on 2008-07-11 08:55:28

Hello Alan,

Thanks for your thought-provoking, insightful article.

If there are many traditions leading to an ‘enlightenment’, and you’re arguing all enlightenments are equally valid, then it matters not which path we take, as long as we tread one of them with conviction.

Chaos magick, specifically looking at magic through a postmodern lense, has been an essential milestone in as much as it teaches us in no uncertain terms that our path is not the one true path[tm], an oh-so-common falacy and meta-virus infecting way too many people. Postmodern magic certainly has let us break those shackles and move more freely. The content we might encounter on the path is not the same as having the structure allowing us to follow a path.

In your article you write, “I’m tired of hearing how a teenager’s mind-bending experience on mushrooms is somehow commensurate with and just as valid as a meditative insight hard-won through years of magical and meditative practice.” I for one recall some extremely wondrous and insightful experiences as a teenager, as I’m guessing you did too. It is almost as if those early experiences were teasing tempters offered to me to urge me along and continue magical development. Are they “just as valid”, as you’re tired of hearing about? Well validity is a very difficult thing to measure as I’m sure you’re aware. And time isn’t necessarily linear in this regard. Without those early experiences, would the later ones be possible? These experiences are invaluable in that they give insight into the possibilities and potentials we can achieve. I’m not sure there’s a merit in some kind of quantitative measure of “validity”. Is the first step up a mountain more valid that the 23rd? Than the last? Surely they all go together to paint a wondrous picture for us.

As an aside, in one of your answers to adma you write, “I’m afraid we no longer have time to ‘chill out’ about the Great Work. ”

Why is that? Do you forsee some impending event on the horizon? I’m not sure I saw it referenced in your article. Thanks for writing it and publishing it! Very thought-provoking. I’ll come back and spot your comments, if any.

Sean

by seanifool on 2008-07-16 23:31:42

Hello Sean,

Thanks for your comments.

I agree, we do indeed have a lot to thank postmodernism for. I hope I made it clear in my article that I don’t have a problem with postmodernism per se, but with the misunderstanding of postmodernism that usually passes for the real thing.

As for the validity of early experiences with entheogens, I’m afraid I wasn’t too clear with that statement. What I really meant was I’m tired of hearing how an experience of tripping is commensurate with Fruition, or a peak experience of enlightenment. Having had them both, I know first hand they are on a completely different scale of quality and profundity. I guess I was having another pop at the idea of ‘gnosis’ as a catch all term for the rich and varied field of mystical or profound experience.

‘As an aside, in one of your answers to adma you write, “I’m afraid we no longer have time to ‘chill out’ about the Great Work. ”

Why is that? Do you forsee some impending event on the horizon?’

I very much ascribe to the prophecies concerning 2012, but I believe most people (surprise surprise) don’t really understand prophecy. Like any divination, the message is expressed by the availble means of manifestation, and for the mayan and hopi prophecies this means astrological symbolism. To cut a long story short, all that is predicted by the prophecies (and every other genuinely magical prophecy, such as mckenna’s timewave) is a transition, or birth of a new world, or the ingress of infinite novelty, and so on. The question is, what real world events might match those meanings? Thus any predictions of comet collision, solar radiation bombardment, magnetic field reversal, nuclear apocalypse, ad nauseam, are akin to believing the tarot card ‘The Chariot’ predicts your being run over by a car.

So no, I don’t believe in any impending event, but I do believe we are experiencing real world changes in a cultural sense that will only accelerate as we approach 2012. I think we need to ensure we end up with the changes we would most like to see; after all, you better believe there are others out there doing just that thing already, and I doubt they have your best interests at heart.

by Alan on 2008-07-17 10:31:33

Just read your article today. Well said! Well said! I do not often speak up about this issue, but Buddhists for example do maintain that there are different kinds of enlightenment. You are dead on, the politically correct has seeped onto the temple floor of the magical, and the spiritual community is suffering for it. Your approach could lead to a great discussion, and more depth of magic. Let’s put on our pointy magician hats, and analyze and debate so that we may all deeply progress on our paths! Vive La Differance!

by Ketherintherye on 2008-08-01 15:45:14

nice work. write the book on integral chaos mysticism please. thanks,

r81

by rhys81 on 2008-08-12 15:28:13

My book Advanced Magick for Beginners is out late September 2008 courtesy of Aeon books.

by Alan on 2008-08-21 14:41:13

Login or register to post a comment.