From: Chris L Crane Area: MagickNet To: Madera 29 Sep 94 22:14:16 Subject: Re: More on Money Magick UpdReq Incredible spell working.. thank you for your input! Hope to hear from others though as well about thier spells and rits concerning money. Even if its an inscense, or candle rit... THANKS! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rose Dawn Area: MagickNet To: Joseph Max 28 Sep 94 09:00:40 Subject: CHAOS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > Uh-oh. I knew somebody was going to ask this sooner or later. > > No insult meant or taken, believe me. I believe you. ;> I tend to cringe a little when newcomers to this particular board ask, as they're wont to do, "What does THELEMA mean?" "What does Love *is* the law mean?" "Why love *under* will?" "What's this 'Every man and every woman is a star' stuff about?" etc. etc. etc. When feeling impatient, I tell em to read Liber II, otherwise I just get didactic for Fun and Prophet. ;> > First the disclaimer -- my personal definition is _personal_; there are as > many definitions of "Chaos Magick" as there are practitioners. Over on the > Thelema echo I'm already embroiled in a debate over what Chaos Magick > means... Sure. I tend to take almost EVERYthing expressed in this medium as personal opinion/personal def'. Makes things much easier. I'd suspect, however, that the reason so many people are curious is that the 'standard answers' about what constitutes chaos magick are applicable to many modern ceremonial magicians who don't consider themselves 'Chaotes.' And the 'AX vs. IOT vs. TOPY vs. TOPI' threads usually bore me. I'm curious about what makes an individual describe themselves this way, as opposed to simply putting a personal spin on magick and the individual style of practicing same. It seems so far that I share many of your attitudes toward magick, but I *don't* consider myself a Chaote, and don't think of my personal magical style as 'Chaos Magick.' Know whattI mean? ;> > First off, I assume from your standard salutations you consider yourself a > Thelemite. Think of the rep that Thelemites have suffered under for > lo these > many years. In fact, they were _the_ bad boyz/grrrls of the occult until > Chaotes came along and have somewhat superceded them in that title > in recent years, eh? Sure; I'm a Thelemite and an O.T.O. initiate...yet I don't consider myself inextricably bound by tradition-for-tradition's-sake. Crowley his own bad self has spoken about ritual-tweaking in favorable terms. I have run into a *few* pedantic types who seem appalled at the idea of introducing personal elements into Thelemic!ritual!!, but this attitude seems to me to be in the minority. It's possible I've simply been fortunate in my encounters with other people, and there are more fundies out there than I realize; if so I'm glad for it! The bad rep stuff seems mostly to be propagated by ultra-fluff types, or those who are ignorant of what Thelema is really about, or anything that AC really wrote, said, or thought. My usual reaction is one of irritation, but I don't attach much importance to that rep stuff. Do you think a similar dynamic is going on with the bad rep of chaos mages in some quarters? > And boy, am I sick and tired of anti-social nilhilists with black leather > jackets and haircuts, sporting Eight-Rayed Star tattoos and calling > themselves "Chaos Magicians", when the closest they've ever come to > magickal > practice would be lighting a lot of black candles and screwing to Throbbing > Gristle records. Same crowd that used to wear upside-down pentagrams and > call themselves "Satanic Witches" or "Black Magicians", but they have a > trendier label to use now to pick up groupies at a rave. But, I > digress... Sure; posers are annoying, whether they're blasting Skinny Puppy and calling themselves chaos mages, shooting cats in the name of Uncle Al, or wearing black lipstick and mumbling about how life sucks while wasting Mom-and-Dad's money in goth clubs. It's even *more* annoying when such people are well past addle-escence! > I might be somewhat of an exception, as I came to Chaos Magick via a more > traditional Thelemic/Hermeitc background. I went through a good bit of > "proper" magickal training, which I eventually began to chafe under the > restrictions and assumptions thereof. Too much of a heretic, I > guess... But do you think there's something inherent in more traditional magical systems vis the restrictions and assumptions, rather than simply an effect of the particular group of people you were involved with? See, this is where I get confused, because I haven't personally encountered the restrictive ceremonial attitudes that I've heard so much about from others. I'm thinking there has to be more to the delineation that this, as the majority of ceremonial magicians I've met, spoken with, learned from, and done ritual with, concur with the fluidity of approach, personalization of ritual, and application of any appropriate training or discipline, no matter what the source, that trips *my* triggers. > I don't disparge "traditions" , but I don't feel bound to them, either. > Instead I borrow freely from them as need or desire dictates. I'm rather > fond of Egyptian styles, and still work a lot with Hermetic imagery and > techniques - probably due to my background. Not that I try to homogenize > various traditions into a kludged together amalgram, like so many "new age" > types are so fond of doing. If I'm doing an Wicca tradition working, I > try to stay in that paradigm for that working. If I do a Egyptian ritual, I > stick with the Egyptian imagery exclusively (Did a wonderful Egyptian rite > last Solstice - an adoration of Amun-Ra - in full ceremonial dress,with all > the incantations recited in Egyptian. At high noon in Golden Gate Park, no > less!) Grand stellium Leo that I am, I _love_ a good ritual... Hmmm, I'm starting to suspect the differences may be more semantical than actual! I've always heard that it's a good idea to learn the 'traditional' way of doing things and get a good foundation in those ways, as a preparation for figuring out which of those traditional ways *works*, keeping those, and updating or personalizing those that don't. That sounds pretty much like what you're saying as well. I remember not wanting to practice any basic rits when I first approached western c.m., as I had more eastern-flavored rituals and practices that seemed identical at the core, and worked perfectly well for me...I think I started regular practice more as a way of proving to myself that there was no difference than any honest desire to give it a go...but I discovered that there were subtle differences between systems that gave different flavors and nuances, and some of em worked better and some of em didn't. Being a scorpion-in-the-woodpile, I tend toward quiet but intense, rather than loud and showy. ;> > Tell ya what - I'll go ahead and post a FAQ-Sheet-In-Progress that > is being > worked on for the USENET group alt.magick.chaos that will give the folks > here some "background" on the subject instead of rambling on > endlessly here. > Stay tuned to this channel... Good call. Thanks! Love is the law, love under will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Kai Mactane Area: MagickNet To: Joseph Max 26 Sep 94 18:04:06 Subject: Re: sigils UpdReq -> Ygr'th na Joseph Max zwan Kai Mactane ngah'wlaq -> r'hylth Re: sigils, n'qah? JM> Would you go so far as to say that being consciously _obsessed_ with JM> deriving results from a magickal working is not a hinderance? In my KM> IME, it's an all-or-nothing proposition: you can either do a KM> ritual that, at least for an instant, completely abolishes the con- KM> scious mind (including any lust for results that it may bear), -=or=- KM> you can do one that intensifies the lust for results to the point KM> where it COMPLETELY dominates the consciousness, to the point where [etc.] JM> Very true. I pretty much agree with the above assesment, especially JM> the part about the difference being pretty much semantic. In my JM> experience one must be emotionally overwhelmed during a ritual working JM> for the "conscious mind over-the-top" style to work. I would definitely agree there. It also occurs to me, while editing and snipping, that that paragraph means I *would* go so far as to say that "being consciously _obsessed_ with deriving results from a magickal working is not a hinderance," but *only* as long as you're obsessed _enough_. :) And that's a tall order. JM> The operant idea here is this: the keys to effective Magick are the JM> altered states of consciousness. I will declare flat-out that if one JM> does not attain an altered state of consciousness in a magick working JM> it will amount to very little as far as "to cause change to occur in JM> accordance with the will." I would be highly inclined to agree there. I would further state that the particular altered state achieved *does* have an effect on the success of the working. There are many, many states the human consciousness can achieve, and many (take "blind drunk" as one example) are not at all conducive to magickal working. Further, of the general set of states that *are* conducive to such workings, not all are equally conducive to any given, particular working. For example, I find that a divinely-assisted rite requires a different "flavor" from one assisted by elementals, or one that runs off my own power. The difference _could_ be likened to the difference in demeanor between talking to a glowering judge on his bench, talking to a friend (or someone of equal standing, but from a different social group?), and hanging out in private. But that's not the best analogy. Really, the English language (or the specialized version of it that we use to talk about technical points in magick) needs better words to describe gradations in ASCs. JM> It really matters not _how_ one goes about JM> attaining it, though some will argue that the method chosen should in JM> _some_ way be "appropriate" to the desired effect. Casting curses with JM> sex magick is probably not a great idea, for example... This is related, but not identical, to my earlier point about the particular state being important. I was talking about the _state_finally_ _achieved_, while this refers to the _stimuli_used_to_achieve_the_state_. Obviously, both are important, especially since the stimuli used help deter- mine many things about the final state. Not only is sex magick generally inappropriate to the casting of a curse (unless you have some ***very*** warped ideas about sex, in which case therapy may safely be prescribed! :), but a highly romantic roses-and-white-wine setting would be inappropriate to generate the *type* of sexual state most appropriate to a curse (though it would be excellent for a sex magick working for some glamor/appearance-related purpose). (The more I think about it, the less sure I am of what type of sex _would_ be good for a curse... which I guess means I'm healthy! :) Also, I note that casting curses with sex magick is not only a bad idea magickally, it could also be disastrous psychologically. Most people wouldn't really want to have a correspondence set up in their minds that relates sex and curses. JM> There are two modes of attaining the gnostic state required to work JM> effects magick, to whit: [interesting list sacrificed to Yog B'ndwdth, who is getting fat.] JM> As can be seen from this chart, the excitatory mode can be more JM> problematic. Emotional arousal is the obverse form to meditation, in [etc...] I also notice that the two columns correspond (*very* roughly!) to what Heinlein refers to as "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" modes of ritual (I know he got the terms from somewhere else, I'm just not sure where). JM> Are you saying that by someone can simply learn the "correct" JM> incantations and light the "correct" color of candles and chant the JM> words in the "correct" order and derive magickal results? Is conscious, JM> deliberate action all there is to it? I think not... KM> I don't see how you yielded this from Rainlake's statement, which KM> was disagreement that the conscious mind short-circuits magick. JM> Well, I was just taking the arguement to the extreme to point out the JM> fallacy of the statement. Basic Socratic method. I think the problem there is as follows: R: The conscious mind *does not always* short-circuit magick. JM: (thinks) The conscious mind *never* short-circuits magick. therefore: JM: The conscious mind can do it all by itself. I see Rainlake's viewpoint as roughly analogous to my own, though phrased differently. (Rainlake also seems to be including the preparation along with the ritual, which complicates things.) But I don't think your /reductio/ really applies. KM> Actually, they *do* make deep-level changes in their psyches on KM> a regular basis, which is pretty heavy stuff. The fact that tese KM> changes are temporary (at least when done right) doesn't diminish KM> their force or the impressiveness of the feat (indeed, in a way, it KM> makes the feat a bit *more* impressive!). JM> Actually, I would agree to the point that ritual magick could be JM> thought of as magickally effective method acting -- IF the requisite JM> altered state of consciousness is attained in the process. Actually, whenever I make changes in my own persona (usually on a longer-term basis than an actor, though), I *do* find myself using some of the... umm, "tools"? that are part of the ASC repertoire. I'm not really sure how to describe it... Of course, I don't know what the method actors do, and I wasn't trying to claim them as magicians anyway; I was just saying they do some things that have commonalities with magickal practice. --Kai MacTane. ... "I can sense millions of minds focused on my cleavage." - Deanna Troi ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718