From: Corky McGraw Area: MagickNet To: All 17 Oct 94 18:47:04 Subject: Chaos UpdReq I have heard a lot of conversation of Chaos Magic recently. I must confess in my naieveity that I have no idea what this is. The more I read the more confused I seem to get. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks ........ Corky ... I before E except after lunch. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: MagickNet To: Joseph Max 17 Oct 94 12:18:04 Subject: Magick Versus Religi UpdReq -=> Quoting Josh Norton to Joseph Max Re: Dr. John Dee <=- JN> Dee didn't consider himself to be a magician, and denied it on many JN> occasions. He wanted to distinguish himself from the many other JN> "magicians" in England at the time. Most of these were concerned with JN> summoning demons (Sir Walter Raleigh dabbled in this) or with JN> producing physical effects, neither of which Dee cared about. JM> I wonder how much of the denial was prompted by his private feelings and how JM> much by the pressures of his position at court. Even with all his JM> hand-washing, his house got burned down in what is probably the archtypical JM> "angry-villagers-torching-evil-mad-scientists-house" scene for practicing JM> "witchcraft". Queen Elizibeth _must_ have liked the prestige of having him JM> around... Remember that aside from his magickal work, Dee was also one of the most educated men of the time, and an innovative practical thinker. His work on navigation alone benefited her government enough to justify his inclusion in her court. As for his problems with QE's successor James, he just had the misfortune to get caught up in the beginnings of the mess that eventually led to the "Puritan Revolution", the English Civil War, and the rise of Cromwell. His own actions didn't have a lot to do with his problems; likely the same would have happened had he avoided anything resembling magick during his life. I really wonder about that "angry villagers" thing -- how many people does it take to torch somebody's house? Not many. And he clearly had a good odor with most of his neighbors, since they allowed him to be buried in the local church. JN> But as a matter of _practice_, I believe he fits the bill well enough. JN> It true there's no record of his having used the Enochian system JN> itself, but the workings in which he received that system certainly JN> qualify as magickal. JM> True enough, but he was definetly in the position of observer and JM> chronicler. Typical detached scientist's attitude. Again I'd have to disagree. Accounts indicate he really wanted to be his own scryer, but didn't have any talent for it. JN> But, looking at the few extant samples, the only difference I can see JN> from magickal invocations of the time was that Dee _requested_ the JN> spirits to appear rather than commanding them. This isn't significant, JN> IMO; I do the same thing myself. JM> Of course. Most systems of evocation have varying forms of "address" to JM> spiritual entities, from beseeching to bullying, depending on their nature. JM> It's not totally insignificant, in that it's one of those significant JM> details of ritual work to put one into the proper subconscious state to deal JM> with a particular entity to be evoked. I meant it isn't significant as a distinction between what he was doing and "real" magick, according to a modern understanding of things. JM> [re: Degree of Christian belief held by Dee and Kelly] JM> I guess my point was that they had no choice but to profess that position JM> regardless of what they may have personally believed. It would be very had JM> to ever do more than speculate about their states of mind, but I guess it's JM> the old skeptic in me that always has me looking for new ways to interpret JM> what people _say_ as distinct from what may _be_. Hmm. I'd say his records of the work provide plenty of evidence of his state of mind. These weren't intended to be made public, so they couldn't be said to represent a public position. And given that he was willing -- even eager -- to demonstrate his "angel magick" for representatives of the Pope, I'd say he was fairly confident of its fitness from a religious point of view. JM> Did Rapheal, Uriel, etc. use their "Hebrew" names ever, or did they always JM> use their Enochian "equivlents"? I mean, if I were confronted with four JM> evoked "entities", who called themselves by names in another language, and JM> they had the four Elemental qualities to them, then I'm going to _interpret_ JM> them differently if I'm a Wiccan rather than a Christian. Perhaps they were JM> just fitting their visions to their accepted frmaework: "Oh, RAAGOSAL must JM> be _really_ just another name for Rapheal..." and so on. The Judaeo-Christian angels appeared _only_ under their original names; none of them had a position within the hierarchies they were presenting to D&K. As D&K understood it, the entire set of Heptarchic and Enochian angels are a sub-group of angels, underneath and subject to the rule of the Christian god and his archangels. ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rose Dawn Area: MagickNet To: Joseph Max 18 Oct 94 08:26:24 Subject: Re: CHAOS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > Such experimentation is quite common among those who claim the title of > Chaos Magician. I truly doubt that you can say the same for a particular > Pagan group. Wiccans, for example, tend to always work in theLady-and-Lady- > call-down-the-moon-salute-the-quarters-circle-circle-shining-bright-so- mote- > it-be paradigm, regardless of the minor "spontaneous" idiosyncracies they > might work into a particular rite. Same goes for say, Nordic pagans - altar > in the North, hammer salute to the quarters, "Hail Odin" and all > that stuff. > This is not to disparge any of these traditions - I have participated in > rites using these paradigms with all due respect. But I am free to follow > any other paradigm I choose whenever I choose for whatever reason I > choose. LOL...Ok, I see yer point. Still, one of the things that irks me about several generic neo-Pagans I've encountered has been the "All Gods are one God, all Goddesses are one Goddess; therefore I can invoke Herne and Kali, or Isis and Odin, or Ishtar and Ganesha..." without knowing a damned thang about the mythology associated with any of the above. OTOH, I agree with Josh Norton's assessment that one can achieve enlightenment by meditating on Deputy Dawg cartoons, so maybe the Tom-Bombadil-and-Durga-Circles are achieving something for those involved. I also feel free to work within any paradigm I choose--but I *hope* I wouldn't jump on in without some basic familiarity with said paradigm. I stick mostly with 'Thelemic-Egyptian' and Hindu cosmology, even when designing personal rituals, simply because those are the ones I like best . > For that matter, I don't see many Thelemites doing rewrites of the Gnostic > Mass to reflect their personal expressions! Oh, I do! The first discussions I had with anyone about the Gnostic Mass were with a group who frequently use variations...I should add, though, that they do *not* announce their Mass celebrations as the Mass per _Liber XV_. Discussion about the differences has led me to what I hope is a deeper understanding of the Mass Symbolism. My first actual participation in a Gnostic Mass was just a couplea daze ago, and the Mass was performed in strict compliance with Liber XV. Didn't detract from the experience for me at all--it was powerfully moving, and very beautiful. :> I'm glad to have had the opportunity to kick things around with the 'heretics' as well though. ;> > That's what I was referring to above. Such things are a result of the demon > of DOGMA. Whenever that most hideous of demons raises it's ugly head, it > should be decapitated instantly without mercy, for it is invariably > followed by the smell of burning infidel flesh... Fer-sher. Take an idea--any idea--even a perfectly good idea!--and you'll invariably find that reification leads to deification, leads to dogmatization, leads to stagnation. > but "whatever one's attitude toward metaphysics happens to be". When > I use the term "religion" I am referring to an organised method of > expressing fealty and obeisanse to higher spiritual power(s). You see, I Understood. I don't really subscribe to the alt-def's of 'any system that has personal significance' vis religion; just thought it was an interesting and unexpected thing to find in the dictionary. ;> My personal def' is similar to yours, yet there *are* organized religions who acknowledge a God/Gods and pay them homage without any real sense of obeisance/supplication. > fealty and obeisanse to higher spiritual power(s). You see, I believe > wholeheartedly in the existence of superphysical entities, variously > described as spirits, gods, elementals, etc. What I do _not_ hold to > is that > because of their spiritual nature they are "superior" to human beings, or > have any business dictating the norms of thought or behavior to human > beings. Since they are _not_ humans, where do they get off telling humans > how to live? It's a stupid as a celebate clergy dispensing sexual > advice... I'm still not sure what I believe...at one point, I had a confirmed theistic POV...later switched over to an atheistic POV...right now, a lot of my beliefs are in a pretty wild state of flux, so my basic answer to almost everything important is: Homey Don't Know. Hmmm...does your personal cosmology leave out anything similar to the 'god-man' concept? No Jesus/Osiris/Krsna types? Or would that make any difference I wonder...it's struck me sometimes, in idle moments that Siddhartha Gautama would be amazed by the practices of a lot of modern Buddhists. The entire point of his system was that he broke free from his orthodox Hindu roots and found his own way. I don't think he intended to found a new religion, just as I don't think Jesus was a Christian! Also reminiscent of something I'd heard when people talk about contacting the spirits of the departed: Just cuz they're dead don't mean they're smart. > But rather than assume a chauvanistic attitude of "superiority", I > feel the > proper attitude is to approach dealing with spiritual entities as _equals_; > different in nature perhaps, but not "higher" powers. I dunno. I'd suspect that, just as there are humans with differing levels of wisdom and understanding, spiritual entities would follow the same basic course. I definitely *do* acknowledge the existence of 'something' that is a 'Higher Power' than Rose Dawn Scott, but whether it's a distinct, real, discarnate entity or part of my deeper Self, I dunno. > There is a difference between group discretion and grade secrecy used as a > tool to ensure that the followers toe the line. In the group I work with, > the AutonomatriX, a potential guildmember undergoes a period of assessment > by the current members of whatever Working Group or Temple they wish to be > affiliated with (usually a few months). This is mostly to ascertain Sounds sensible. Sounds a lot like the O.T.O.'s Minerval degree, in fact. >vote of the current members.Then the candidate composes their own initiation > ceremony which is administered by the other members of the group - although > the group works an "element of surprise" into the initiation. Thus, no two > initiations are ever the same (which is proper - no two _people_ are ever > the same), and coming up with a suitable "surprise" is itself a test of the > creativity of the group! In this manner, the need for hoarding "secret > initiation rituals" is eliminated, but the effectiveness of the element of > "surprise" in an initiation is retained. This *does* sounds like a fascinating idea! Still, I think it's possible for scripted initiation rituals to tap into something so deep as to be virtually universal. Ideally, this would be the idea, I think. I was surprised--amazed might be more accurate--by how strongly I *was* affected by the actual ceremony during my O.T.O. initiations into Minerval and First. I'm sorry to be so vague--it has nothing to do with oathbound material or a sense of secrecy-- this is one of those cases that just can't be adequately conveyed, and I'm still not completely sure about all the dynamics, just that the effects were present, real, and most potent. I think the sponteneity is still very much present with a scripted ritual as well--that comes from the candidate him/herself, and his/her reactions to various parts of the ritual. And, less important to me, but still a consideration, the fact that each of us *has* undergone the same ritual, and the discussions among initiates of how the ritual itself impacted them, how they reacted and felt at different stages, and the types of things we each went through following initiation, do build a real bond and sense of fraternity and 'group intimacy.' I've never yet run across anything I would consider manipulative on the part of the Order as an entity, or any individual member that I've gotten to know personally. > At the completion of the rite, the new guildmember is given a > complete copy > of The Corpus Fecundi ("Body of Work") consisting of all spells, formulas, > incantations, research records, past initiations, ritual transcripts, etc. > that have ever been used by the A:.X Temples and WG's, plus a contact > listing of all current members (usually by "magickal" name to insure > descretion by individuals who desire it). IOW, once you're in, you're _in_, > and you have access to _all_ of the collective knowledge of the A:.X to use > as you see fit. It is a confedration of _equals_. Sure, there are Hmmm. It sounds egalitarian, and un-problematic...actually, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Does it seem to work well this way in practice? I think that there are layers to any individual's ability to understand and make use of certain info and material. I think it corresponds with various 'initiatory states' in the individual's *life*, which may or may not completely coincide with that person's degree/grade in any outer Order. I'd be inclined to say that if one isn't ready to make adequate use of such material, they just wouldn't 'get it'...rather than that it would be inherently dangerous. Well, it could be--deliberately going after some heavy shit yer not ready to face down can really hoze with yer head! :/ I do think that giving smaller bits of the same knowledge in stages, as the individual is ready, is the best way to go--for me, and for many people. I know info I have personally had access to for some time is only now becoming clear, and I'm sure there will be stuff I consider at present to be complete BS, that will, down the road, make me go Hmmmm....or even AHA! I think that readiness, or accumulation of understanding, is a very personal thang, which will vary considerably from individual to individual. I see the O.T.O.'s Degree structure more as a general categorization, or attempt to gauge th 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rose Dawn Area: MagickNet To: Joseph Max 18 Oct 94 08:59:56 Subject: CHAOS, REPLY PART II UpdReq Ok, oops, got cut off...gotta learn to pretend there's a Cosmic Editor with a word limitation hovering nearby when I post I guess! :/ NEwayz, I kind of look at the O.T.O.'s Degree structure, not as a way of manipulating initiates, or a carrot-and-stick method, but more an attempt to approximate the general 'time-frame' that the individual progression toward wisdom and understanding would take. Obviously, some initiates possess more gnosis than their degree in the Outer Order would indicate; others may whiz right through the initiation rituals without having attained quite as much. I also believe that if the individuals around any person recognize qualities that indicate that person is 'ready for more,' it's not so completely structured that assistance would be categorically denied based simply on one's degree...and that, conversely, if an individual doesn't seem to have 'grokked' something yet, it would be possible for others in the group to gently suggest they might not be in such a hurry to move on. There have been times when I'd have welcomed a more 'chaotic' approach, such as you've described, with everything available to me all at once, sure. In practice, I'd probably have been confused and overwhelmed at being presented with a huge body of work to pick and choose and study from. OTOH, maybe not. It's tempting to say the choice should be available to each individual, but I'm going to stop short of saying that. There's so much that I don't understand yet, that I'm starting to wonder if I have definite opinions about anything at this point! ;> Most importantly, while I still sometimes think I'd like to be moving faster within the Order, I have *never* felt that degree restrictions or privacy requests have been manipulative of me as a person, or imposed for any shady reasons. I love the Order with all my heart! Also, until approximately a year ago, I had a fairly traditional 'guru/chela' relationship with an individual in another tradition I had been exploring/practicing. He took the same gradual approach with me, revealing and withholding and explaining as he judged my spiritual condition to merit. The relationship never degenerated into blind obedience on my part, or advantage-taking on his part. I think it was ideal, and I think that, the O.T.O. being larger than one guru, and its initiates being more numerous than one chela, the degree system is the best approximation possible of that very intimate one-on-one relationship. More mundanely, as a former underground hatha yoga instructor, now studying for certification, I would not suggest that a brand-new student who had been living a sedentary lifestyle, dive right into Sirshasana before mastering Sukhasana. Nor would I throw a bunch of information about the effects of asanas on the parasympathetic nervous system at someone who just wanted their neck to stop hurting. Know what I mean, jellybean? ;> > Remember, peer presure and the impetus to conform can be insidous and subtle > - that's what makes it so effective! Anytime there is an "inner > order" that holds back information, there is an automatic superior/inferior > dichotomyestablished having nothing to do with ability or _real_ knowledge, > that may > be (and all too often is) based on nothing more than the fact that some > "inner" members simply kissed the right asses. For an individual calling him/herself a Thelemite, I would think the 'peer pressure' would be more along the lines of *not* conforming--of being a Man and Stand-Up Dude . I'm constantly reminded that we are a 'Group of Individuals.' And the 'O.T.O. mucky-mucks' I've personally encountered are anything *but* superior in their attitudes...I've seen that dichotomy more often among other MoEs like my own bad self, than coming from those who hold positions of authority within the Order. You've expressed the opinion that if there is any chance at all of abuse, why hold onto that tradition--I think one could as easily, and accurately, say that if there's any chance at all of benefit, why do away with it? There are plenty of pseudo-gurus who fleece their followers and subject them to all kinds of abuse--financial, sexual, emotional. My own Satguru was most emphatically *not* one of them. If I had been too cautious, based on the real abuses that do take place all the time within guru-based systems, I would have missed out on tremendous benefits also available within the relationship. I am no longer anyone's _chela_, but I feel I'm a more mature individual for having been so. I'm not a fluffy-bunny Noo Ager--I firmly believe that trust and respect should be *earned*; to me, they are *not* ascribed statuses. Yet, because the potential for abuse exists--within many systems--that doesn't mean it's going to be acted upon. Tremendous potential for mutual respect, learning, spiritual growth, also exist within many systems. It's up to each individual to be intelligent enough to figure out if they're being taken advantage of, and if so, to get the hell out of whatever that situation may be. > My point exactly. So anything else is highly suspect! Secret orders > allow for hidden agendas... Anything that exists allows for the possibility of hidden agendas though. People have children out of emotional insecurity and neediness, to get a larger AFDC payment, to try to save failing relationships, because it's the 'thing to do', even explicitly in order to have their own personal victims to abuse sexually. The 'Family Unit' is the world's oldest 'Secret Order' in many ways. It doesn't equate to me to say that childbearing should be abolished to protect against all the potential abuses. The human race wouldn't last very long if it did! Love is the law, love under will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Lazarus Long Area: MagickNet To: Valkyrie 17 Oct 94 22:15:00 Subject: Hello? UpdReq Hello Valkyrie! Valkyrie, are you still out there somewhere? I haven't heard from you in ages. Please respond!! [ Lazarus Long*FidoNet 1:349/32.12*arne7546@TAO.sosc.sosshe.edu ] [ BlaNet 66:2100/0 * SOKUNet 32:100/12 * PODNet 93:9703/8 ] 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: MagickNet To: Martin Krogh-Poulsen 19 Oct 94 00:17:00 Subject: CHAOS UpdReq MK> This sounds very wise of a Teaching Order! Could you please MK> tell us what Order it is that you belong to? Companions of the Stone. It is a Pacific-Northwest based Hermetic order. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Kai Mactane Area: MagickNet To: Joseph Max 17 Oct 94 03:47:00 Subject: Autonomatrix initiations UpdReq -=> Yglr'th Joseph Max zrlq Rose Dawn z'qwan "Re: chaos"? -=> F'dzeh nyq'rhg: JM> There is a difference between group discretion and grade secrecy used JM> as a tool to ensure that the followers toe the line. In the group I JM> work with, the AutonomatriX, a potential guildmember undergoes a period [snip] JM> the candidate composes their own initiation ceremony which is JM> administered by the other members of the group - although the group JM> works an "element of surprise" into the initiation. Thus, no two JM> initiations are ever the same (which is proper - no two _people_ are JM> ever the same), and coming up with a suitable "surprise" is itself a JM> test of the creativity of the group! In this manner, the need for JM> hoarding "secret initiation rituals" is eliminated, but the JM> effectiveness of the element of "surprise" in an initiation is JM> retained. Ooooooohh, I *like* this!!! Had that element of surprise not been incorporated, I would have thought it a very silly thing, but this allows the initiate to work in stimuli that s/he knows will have a particular effect of hirself... potentially *very* powerful! And I must admit, I truly love the egalitarianism of making sure the _group_ is worthy of the _initiate!_ The Golden Dawn would never have conceived of this. :) RD> And yup--I do believe that the Big Secrets aren't 'secret' because RD> nobody will confide them, but because they *can't* be confided--they RD> gotta be experienced. Oh, very much yes! --Kai MacTane. ... And Satan said to God, "Yes, but where will YOU find a lawyer?" ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Kai Mactane Area: MagickNet To: Andrew Hotopp 17 Oct 94 17:47:28 Subject: Re: tell us tell us UpdReq -> Ygr'th na Andrew Hotopp zwan Kai Mactane ngah'wlaq -> r'hylth tell us tell us, n'qah? KM> If you missed my or Joseph Max's posts detailing our methods, I'd be KM> happy to re-post mine, and I doubt Mr. Max would have any problem with KM> doing likewise. AH> Please do so. I am extremely interested in this subject. oh yeah, AH> what is it? The post is up. The subject, from the material you re-quoted at me, was money magicks. --Kai MacTane. ... All the lonely people/Where *do* they all come from? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718