A methodical approach to magic

I tend to be a generalist when it comes to magic, which is to say I don't specialize in a particular area or discipline of magic. I prefer to learn as much as possible about a wide variety of topics (most of them not even overtly magical). I admire people who can focus on tarot or a particular type of ceremonial magic to the exclusion of much else, but I don't find that ever works for me. I actually recall once being called on that by another magician. This person asked me what the benefit was of taking such a general approach, as opposed to specializing in something. My argument was that I was finding the connections between all those general areas and tying them together. I still feel I achieve a decent depth as it were in my studies, because inevitably what I'm studying in one area, intersects with another area of interest.

In fact, the method to my madness is a very methodical approach to magic and other areas of interest, where I find and start exploring as much as I can about diverse areas of interest...and yet still stay focused on those areas. I'm not bouncing around all over the place with what I'm reading or doing...I like to stay relatively on topic, really get into the heart of the territory I'm exploring. And that's where a method comes into play, because even if you're a generalist such as myself, you still want to devote enough time and energy toward learning about an interest in-depth, especially if you plan on applying it to your life on any practical level.

I know as a generalist, I can't learn everything there is to know (supposedly the last time that could be done was with Aristotle, but I don't buy that he knew everything there was to know in his time period), but I can still learn a lot, about a variety of interests and get something meaningful out of it, as well as offer something meaningful to others.

I admire the people I know who can really focus in on a given topic. I'm awed by what they do and where it takes them. Being a specialist definitely has it's perks.

And yet, it's a generalist's path for me! And heck, I've found a few others as well, so I'm in good company.

Some thoughts on time

After reading Evola's article on precognition and time in Introduction to Magic, and in particular two passages, I've been musing further about the illusory nature of time and how much a sense of time is derived moreso from routines than we might think. The passages in question is: "The overwhelming majority of people are so enslaved to habits, craving, instincts, and fixed reactions, they are such slaves to things and to their selves, that it would truly be surprising not to be able to forecast their future. Knowing the so-called 'character' of a person, we can already know in an approximate way what he or she will do in certain circumstances" (Evola and the Ur Group 2001, p. 310).

and

"Wherever the basic condition of 'desire' is overcome, and thereby the object is purified from an object of desire into an object of contemplation, the overcoming of the temporal condition ensues naturally. I am referring here to the liberation of the self and of the object and thus to the possibility of capturing in a synthetic way what ordinary consciousness would regard as events analytically arranged along a temporal series, as a mere sequence of 'facts' or events more or less endured" (Evola and the UR Group 2001, p. 313).

A lot of what Evola writes about in terms of habits, cravings, etc is is quite true. Contemporary studies in neuroscience show the people act more so on emotions and cravings and desires and then after that initial impulse end up rationalizing their choices. Given that the amount of neural connections that go from the emotional systems to the rational sections of the brain is substantially more than the connections going from the rational systems to the emotional systems, it's fair to say that the emotions have a significant impact on our choices (no matter how we might like to conceive of ourselves as rational thinkers). Add in the fact, that in sales it's recognized that you sell the feeling in order to hook a potential buyer, and you have people who do in fact plan on the future likelihood that a person will react in an expected manner.

A conversation with my neighbor tonight yielded another insight, which is that if a person feels really good about the lifestyle s/he has, s/he may be perfectly content with the predictability of hir routines. This then brings into question what the motivation for change needs to be to shake up that routine...point is though that time becomes more of a reality through the predictable routines we use to navigate life. In fact time can be conceived as a measurement of those routines. this is most noticeable in the eight hour workday, where time is used to measure how long a person has to stay at work. But it can also be seen in other activities...Calculating the commute for instance.

An astute reader will note that I mentioned time's nature is illusory, but might wonder if that's really the case, given what I just wrote above. But what I wrote above amply demonstrates the illusory nature of time in the sense that time is used as a predictor and measurement of activities...when they should occur, when they could occur, etc....We use time as a measurement to determine and predict when something happens, and create routines out of that prediction.

The second passage of Evola's is intriguing to me, mainly because I've experienced it...i.e. the alignment of events and occurrences that cause a situation to manifest favorably for me. And I think he hits on a key point, that the overcoming of desire greatly enhances the potential of the events aligning in a person's favor. The reason is because you're no longer engaged in specific routines that you believe will get you what you want. We use routines to provide us comfort as well as to fulfill desires, but those same routines are predictive of the actions we'll take, and can limit the possibilities/opportunities a person could manifest.

The choice to overcome the basic condition of desire is really the choice of being able to perceive the desired outcome in a dispassionate manner...to no longer want it, and thus to no longer need your fixed routines that you'd normally use to get it. Unsurprisingly the result of this is that a person is much more open to possibilities or opportunities that are unconventional, yet still lead to the same outcome. A personal example I'd use is my deliberate choice to not concern myself about the out come of my most recent job hunt. Instead of worrying about when I'd get a job, I focused instead on other matters that I cared about. I did of course still do some job hunting, but ultimately the job I ended up with came through a different venue than what I'd normally have found. Everything came together at at exactly the right time.

It occurs to me that linear time is really another means of measuring desire, measuring how much effort you will put into getting something...whereas non-linear time  is an acceptance that the desire isn't essential, and consequently this opens up new vectors which can bring that desire into fruition...the act of not wanting it causes it to occur. Sounds contradictory, but the more desire we emotionally feel, the more invested we are in attempting to obtain something, and as Evola notes and I have noted myself, both from personal experience and from reading a variety of texts on the subject, the feeling of desire can trap us into particular routines, while blinding us to different perspectives that may not be as based in desire (or linear time), but are based on being open to the random opportunities that cause reality to align and manifest what the person was seeking. It's exactly when you give up desire on an emotional level, that you open up to non-linear time and allow what you wanted to come to you through unconventional methods.

Paradox...

Review of Introduction to Magic by Julius Evola and the UR Group

Introduction to Magic by Julius Evola

The title of this book could be a bit misleading, as it's fair to say that the majority of the articles in this book are not intended for people who are just coming into magical practice. The articles requires at least an intermediate knowledge in Hermeticism, Alchemy, or Buddhist Meditation techniques, for the most part. With that said, I definitely recommend this book for anyone who is interested in reading and practicing the different techniques described and discussed in this book.

These articles were written in the late 1920's by a group of experimental magicians called the UR group, lead by Julius Evola. This book presents a fascinating glimpse into ceremonial magical work being done in that time by magicians who weren't overtly associated with magical orders such as the OTO or Golden Dawn. The articles are detail oriented, but all of the writers manage to discuss the concepts with enough brevity to explain what needs to be done and how to do it, without unnecessarily waxing poetic about it.

One article I particularly liked was what I would suggest was the first article ever written on space/time magic...but rather apt for what it suggests about the nature of time and how a person interacts with it. This is definitely a book I will read again and again and get more out of each time I read it. I recommend it to any person who wants to either get a better historical perspective of magical practices or wants to continue honing his/her practices.

Explore related entries in the Library

• Magickal Connections: Creating a Lasting and Healthy Spiritual Group

My interview with Occult Sentinel

Occult Sentinel We discussed Taoism, Space/Time magic, Tarot, and my magical philosophy.

Follow up Post to the time to Get over Crowley post

In her latest post on the Crowley movie, Psyche says: "Ellwood seemed pleased the movie received a terrible review because he hates Crowley...I hear this sentiment [She's quoting my post where I mention his claim to fame is publishing the GD rites and also his showmanship] a fair bit from people who have not actually read much Crowley and are therefore unfamiliar or unaware of the influence he’s had on magickal thought and practice - “hero-worship” rather misses the point."

In point of fact, I don't actually hate Crowley. I just don't think what he's put out there is nearly as impressive as other people seem to think it is. I'm actually quite familiar with Crowley's work, having read Gems From the Equinox, The Book of the Law, Book Four (Parts 1 - 4), Moonchild, Liber 777, Magick in Theory and Practice, and The Book of Lies. And even after reading all of that I'm just not as impressed as others are with his work (As is evidenced by my post where I showed the problems in his definition of magic). Do I think he has valuable things to say? Certainly. I also think he's been dead for a long time, and other people have written works that are equally as valuable but often ignored or not known about, because in Western ceremonial magic, the buck seems to stop at Crowley. A good example would be Pascal Beverly Randolph who's work, as I mentioned in my post about the movie review, was essentially plagiarized by Crowley with no reference back to his work (and yes I have heard actual Thelemites, and ex-Thelemites admit that this was the case).

I don't hate Crowley. What I do hate is the often uncritical acceptance of him, and unwillingness to look at other works by other authors. What I hate is how so much focus is put on Crowley and how he did so much for magic, and how much other people and their contributions have been ignored because OMG Crowley!!! There are some people who even try to emulate his practices and life as much as possible, instead of developing their own practices. And this is where, yes there is hero-worship. Some people get so focused on what Crowley did and how wonderful they think his writings are, etc, etc...and I begin to wonder if they have original thoughts of their own, or have done anything with their practice which isn't just an emulation of what Crowley did.

I know some people argue that Crowley defined magic and that no one can surpass his accomplishments, and that bothers me as well, because if seventies years after the death of someone, you haven't seen genuine progress in a discipline, or people haven't come along and offered something substantive that continues to push that discipline in new directions, then that discipline is dead. At that point, why bother doing anything new? And that's what I hate...that people venerate him to such a degree that the potential for genuine progress is that much lessened...because hey if so and so is such a bad ass magician, I'll never compare to him. They shouldn't be comparing themselves to him in the first place. What they should be doing is getting what they can out of his works and ALSO reading and practicing what others did, while also developing their own practices.

I think Crowley was a person much like anyone else who has his share of experiences and occult adventures. I think he had a lot of courage to write what he did in the era that he wrote in. I also think that he did some questionable practices, such as plagiarizing the work of others. And in the end, I think that while it's important to acknowledge that he's had some influence on Western magic, and continues to this very day, it's also time to start focusing on what others have done and written and learn from their works and experiences. Crowley was just one person, and unlike others I disagree that he's defined magic or set an unsurpassable record. He's offered a perspective on magic, but there are others. He did some impressive magical work, but if you're doing it right than so have you.

I don't hate Crowley. I just hate his influence. I hate that it discourages genuine progress. I hate that people are so wrapped in what he did that they can't look at his work in a balanced manner, and they don't look at the works of other people, because they think that nothing else that anyone wrote had value compared to Crowley. And they don't try to do anything on their own, because they don't think it has value, unless what they're doing is what Crowley did. And that's why it's time to get over the hero worship.

Time to get over the Crowley hero worship

I was pretty dismayed when I found out they were going to make a movie about Crowley. As if he doesn't already have enough hero worship. So I was fairly pleased when I read Dave Evans review of the new movie, in which he states, "For anyone who regards Crowley in a positive light, this is going to be excruciating, and possibly infuriating. For anyone who regards him in a negative light, this appalling falsehood of a film is going to reinforce existing prejudices and add some new ones in people who assume the film is based on something accurate as to Crowley’s behaviour. " And you know what I have to say to that: Good...Fantastic.

Because honestly, if there's one thing I'm tired of hearing in the occult community, it's how Crowley is all that and a bag of chips, and how he's contributed so much to magical thought and practice. You know what: Crowley plagiarized a lot of his work from Pascal Beverly Randolph, and while he wrote some decent material on magic, his writing isn't the best, his theory on how magic works is sloppy, and the fact is other people have written better works since he died. His only two claims to fame is that he published Golden Dawn material that the public wasn't supposed to see and much like LaVey he was able to be a really good showman. I honestly wonder if people would hold him in the same reverence, if he hadn't known how to make such a spectacle of himself.

Time to get over the Crowley hero worship. He isn't all that and a bag of chips and he never was. He was a magician who contributed to the occult knowledge, but there are many others who also contributed to occult knowledge who seem to get thrown to the side because OMG Crowley!!! When I hear how Crowley's writing is poetry, I'd like to point out he's a great imitator of Swinburne and in fact cribbed his poetry style from Swinburne. When I hear how nothing that comes after Crowley is valid, I want to ask the person if s/he has actually read anything other than Crowley (and chances are they haven't). When I hear how great Crowley is and how much he did for magic, I just want to say, "yeah he did a couple things, and there are so many others who have done even more."

And as for the fact that the movie on Crowley might reinforce some falsehoods...guess what they aren't falsehoods...not really. Crowley brought it on himself with all of his activities...He wanted to be bigger than life and notorious and that's part of his legacy. That film just depicts some of the aspects of Crowley that people don't want to see because it takes some of the shine away from him.

Get over the hero worship of Crowley, seriously. It's time to recognize he's just one among many. If you want to recognize what he did, sure take time to appreciate his works and how they've influenced your life, but don't treat him like he's the patron saint of magic. Go read some other works, go do some magic, and stop focusing on just what he did.

Honestly, I'd love to hear people talk about what other authors did in the same tone of reverence they give him. Actually, no I wouldn't. I'd rather people just focus on magic and using it to make their lives better. I think the biggest problem I really have is that people set Crowley up in their minds as some kind of saint of magic they probably never think or even try to go past him, to reach for their own stars, for their own heights...better to look at what he did than actually try and surpass him or simply work magic because you recognize it has value in your life...that's the impression I get so often when it comes to Crowley and how people practically roll over with bellys up when they talk about him.

So yeah get over the hero worship...Crowley's dead and gone and been so for over half a century. He isn't coming back. And his works on magic are ok, but there are others...but really, just stop praising him and start doing some magic and thinking for yourself.

The Wii and magic

We got a Wii recently and already it's sparked some thoughts on how it could be used for magic. While I enjoy the ability to play retro games, by far what I enjoy the most is using the wii mote. I've been fooling around some on the wii sports and something which stood out to me about it was how while the wii mote does give you a visceral experience in using it, it can also give a person an idea of how they think. In this case I'm thinking of bowling, where with a push of a button you can change the direction of the line that you want the bowling ball to go to, factoring in how the ball will curve. I took to using that quite a bit as I got a sense for how the controls picked up my movements in the bowling. And it made me realize that in terms of thinking in lines, I tend to think in curved lines as opposed to straight lines. Straight lines have always represented a kind of linear trap to me, where as a curved line is flexible.  I don't know how much any of that really relates to magic beyond perhaps recognizing how one think influences how a person approaches magic. But I will say that I think there are some applications for the wii..Imagine a program where you could do the ritual movements with the wii mote and see on the screen the flaming pentagram. On one hand you might have the removal of visualization, but on the other hand it does offer that opportunity to riase energy both through your own actions and the actions of the computer avatar...sort like an electronic astral plane...or you could have a program where you create your own temple.

I think there's a lot of that could occur with the wii...in terms of applying it to magic...it'll be fascinating to find out out just what can be developed.

Thinking in lines Straight lines vs curved lines...i.e. wii bowling.

Use it or lose it

Use it or lose it. As an experimental magician, it's easy sometimes to get caught up in experimenting on something new or different, but sometimes in the desire to create something you also risk losing what you've done before. Invention is always useful, but knowing what you've done before or what others have done is equally useful. Some of my most meaningful magical experiences have involved doing daily work that is repetitious, but pays off in the long run because of the focus it provides. There's also something to be said for occasionally coming back to techniques you've developed in experimentation and using them for more than just to see if something works. I recently started creating a new web-sigil for myself because of a lot of projects that I'm working on. It's helping me clarify what I want to work on, while also directing the spiritual and other resources toward helping me accomplish those goals.

If we don't use the tools we have, we start to lose them, we forget what we have...it's easy to do, especially with so much that's around us, but it's important to make time to revisit what you have done sometimes so oyu can get fresh inspiration and also make use of those techniques that helped you in the past.

Some occult authors to look into

In my last post about Julius Evola's works, one of my commenters asked if I'd include a list of lesser known occult authors that people might consider looking into. So here's a small (and not complete) list of occult authors that I personally think people should read. Note that I'm not including Crowley's work or any work derived from Crowley, as obviously they are already very well known. I want to focus on the authors people may not know about.

So the list:

Franz Bardon. He only wrote three books on magic (not counting the fictional book Frabato the magician): Initiation into Hermetics, Evocation, and The Key to the True Quaballah. I've only read the first two at this point, but I'd suggest both as excellent books that detail how hermetics work without the usual flowery language or focus on obsfucation.

Julius Evola. He wrote a number of books, some of which were political commentaries, and some of which were occult works. His political commentaries would be far right/fascist works, which I'm sure would upset some of the more activism/leftist oriented occultists I know, but might be a good read precisely because they represent a different perspective than is usually found in occult activism. The books on magic Tantra: the Yoga of Power and Introduction to Magic are useful books to read. He does an excellent job of presenting an accurate perspective of Tantra and what I've read so far in Introduction to Magic is also an excellent work. He's written other books on the occult, some of which are in print, some of which are not. I haven't read them as yet, but most of them either focus on sex magic or hermeticism, and I'm sure are worth getting. They are on my amazon wishlist.

William G. Gray is another writer who presents some excellent works on both quabalah and ceremonial Magic. One of my favorite books is Modern Ritual Methods, but Inner Traditions of Magic is also good as is his books focused on quabalah: Ladders of Light, The Talking Tree, and Quabalistic Concepts. Recently some of his books have gone back into print, so now would be a good time to pick them up.

On a side note, Gray and Evola's works are some of the few occult works I'd consider spending money at this point, in part because what they write about are advanced concepts, and also because of the thoroughness of what they write about.

Kaostar by Francis Breakspear looks to be an intriguing work...and I'd also recommend the Art of Memetics by Edward Wilson and Wes Unruh for contemporary perspectives on magic.

To get an alternate take on demonology, check out books on Demonolatry by S. Connolly and J. Thorp They provide an alternate take which is useful to read, and will provide some intriguing perspectives in that area.

Jan Fries is an intriguing author who offers up different perspectives on chaos magic, seith workings, runic workings and even a perspective on celtic. I've read several of his works and found them to be insightful.

Dale Pendell offers a trilogy called pharmakon...not overtly occult, it still is some useful works to read.

There's more authors I could refer to...many, many different authors on a variety of topics ranging from Far Eastern energy work and mysticism to alchemy, but what I mentioned here is a good start to expanding the foundation of knowledge a person has as well as getting different perspectives on occult practices.

Explore related entries in the Library

• Ouroboros
• Egregore
• Gathering the Magic: Creating 21st Century Esoteric Groups

Revisiting well worn trails

I'm starting to read Introduction to Magic: Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus by Julius Evola and the UR group. It's my first time reading this book, but not my first time reading Evola's work. I first encountered Evola's work when I read his book on Tantra: The Yoga of Power. I find Evola's writing to be intriguing, if hard to read, which is to be expected given that the original language was Italian (and thus translated into English) and it was written in the Early Twentieth century. I find it's important to acknowledge those two points, because I'm not just reading a work on magic from a different culture, but also from a different time period, and in my experience a time period has it's own culture as well, which informs the context of what is being read or worked with. I think Julius Evola is one of those magicians who often is not known about or read by many contemporary occultists, likely because many people just don't know what to read from the early to mid twentieth century beyond the usual Golden Dawn or Crowley material. So you might wonder where the title revisiting well worn trails comes from and that is due to the content of the book, which is focused on Hermeticism and western ceremonial magic.  For me, while reading this book will definitely get me in touch with some new ideas or perspectives, it's also revisiting trails I've been on before and will walk on again.

Another work I'm reading is The places that scare you by Pema Chodron, which is again a revisiting of a Buddhist perspective to a lot of the internal work I'm currently doing for myself. I have no doubt that the internal work will intersect with the work I do in the book by Evola. As above so below, as within, so without.

It's a continuing journey on well-worn trails.

Methods for organizing your mind

Recently I was up in Seattle, talking with several friends and I mentioned a couple projects I was working on. One of my friends shook his head and asked me how I managed to be so prolific with how busy I am. I thought it was an interesting reaction to have, but it relates to some degree with some of the experimentation I've done in the past as well as ongoing work that focuses on multitasking in order to achieve more. I've always been a multi-tasker and also a person with a very non-linear approach to time and concepts of the self. While some people have a single track mind, my mind is always working on multiple tracks, in multiple directions, doing multiple projects. Even when it seems like I'm working on only one project, there's always other parts of me working on other projects in the background. The same applies to books I usually read five to six books at a given time, switching between each book when I ever overloaded on a particular subject, so that I can give that part of myself time to process and digest information.

I have a variety of techniques I use to help myself process and organize information. I'll share one today, which is based off of a technique from William G. Gray's books: Modern Ritual Methods and Inner Traditions of  Magic. The other techniques you'll have to wait on until I finish writing my sequel to Space/Time Magic. In MRM, Gray posits the concept that a ceremonial tool is a symbolic representation of concepts. We use the tools to symbolically access the concept or information they represent. Gray further suggests that through meditating on a particular and the symbolic associations linked to the tool, a person can imprint that information into his or her consciousness and either invoke or evoke it as needed without the presence of the physical tool. The physical tool can aide in the invocation or evocation of the information because it is a physical embodiment of that information. Gray's approaches to interacting with tools as symbolic constructs is somewhat similar to Spare's alphabet of desire. The goal, with either technique, is to create strong associations that can be drawn on to mesh the magician's identity with the information that the symbols represent.

In ITM, Gray discusses the concept of a Telesmic image. The Telesmic image is an evocation of internal resources or information. It's similar to the concept of a servitor, egregore, or a thoughtform.  It serves as a mirror or reflection of the magician, while also embodying particular aspects of the magician or embodying particular archetypes. From Gray's perspectives deities would be Telesmic Images, which have been suffused with all the information that their worshippers have provided the deity through the devotion given to it.

One of the ways I organize my mind involves the use of symbols for containing information. I can bond the symbol to an image as well, in order to create an entity which represents information or concepts of a specific type. This is useful, because I can then direct information to that construct and draw on that same information when I need access to it.

This then is one method I use for organizing my thoughts...Though I plan on going into much more depth in my sequel to STM.

Further discussions of definitions of magic

In psyche's latest post on the definitions of magic, she attempts to use Crowley's definition of magic to address arguments by a podcaster named Deo who had shared an essay on his podcast wherein he challenged the veracity of magic as a real force (Actually his essay is part of what started the initial post she wrote). As I noted in this post, Crowley's definition is not a good definition of magic, because he is sloppy in his attempts to define what magic is, and is unable to distinguish from any other discipline or approach that could be used in a similar way to explain how a person uses a process to manifest something. However Deo poses an intriguing challenge to Psyche and others in this thread on his forum. Something which is brought up is the "models of Magic" Both Deo and Psyche seem to agree that these models are most effective as understanding practical applications and possibilities of magic and magical systems as opposed to being definitive theories or explanations for how the process of magic works. I'd agree with that myself, but Deo then raises an interesting question: "Is there such a thing (ontologically/metaphysically) as magic?..Does magic deserve to be an ontological category? If not, then it's metaphysically uninteresting and a worldview that lacks it can still be a complete worldview."

Deo's question is an excellent question to ask. It highlights the problem with Crowley's definition, because Crowley's definition cannot answer or explain magic in a way that differentiates it from anything else, something which Deo aptly notes, "I don't consider magic to be 'real' as an ontological component of the universe if it merely names a style of activity irrespective of any kind of mechanism underlying its alleged efficacy" An activity is not automatically magical, simply because it is named magical. A process needs to be described that shows how magic is different from something else...in fact a good definition not only persuades someone what something ought to be, but also shows why something is different from everything else.

Instead of relying on the models of magic to answer Deo's question (I've never really used them and I have my own reasons for thinking that while they provide perspectives on practical applications, the perspectives offered are not necessarily the most efficacious), nor will I rely on an aesthetic approach to magic, because while I think making meaning is a function of magic, I don't believe it is the only function. Plus, in keeping with Deo's criticism, it can be argued that making meaning is does not fall strictly in the domain of magic (as a study of semiotics will quickly reveal to a reader).

I choose to take a different tack to defining magic, based on my own definition of magic, one gained from years of personal experience and experimentation. In Multi-Media Magic, I defined magic as: "Magic involves making the improbable possible. It's learning how even the slightest change you make can have a radical effect on the internal system of your psychology/spirituality, and the external system of the environment and the universe you live in. Magic is the realization of an interdependent system of life that needs every part to bring forth the hidden potential. It is also a methodology that can be used as a stress on the interconnected system, to manifest change in it." I go on to note that magic isn't the only stress on a system. In Space/Time magic, I also noted that magic involved being aware of probabilities and manifesting those probabilities into your life.

A definition of magic then is not so much about doing everything with intent as it is about recognizing probabilities and using a process (which we call magic) to manifest those probabilities into reality. Seems simple enough, but even the definition I wrote above has problems with it. I haven't overtly identified the process that magic utilizes which allows it to be an ontological presence. I identify a benefit of magic, that it makes a person aware of probabilities and enables manifestation of those probabilities, but the underlying mechanism still isn't defined. I note that magic can act as a stress on a system, but that could still use further clarification.

What I define as a system is a recognition that all life is interconnected. Everything lives within a system that necessarily requires everything to work together in order for the entirety of the system to be sustained (And we can note the effects that occur when a system is taken out of balance, global warming anyone?). In a systems approach, both intent AND impact are considered. Impact needs to be considered in order to determine if efficacy has occurred, since impact is one means for measuring the process used to generate it (As a side not, it amazes that most definitions of magic do not consider impact at all...too much focus on intent, not enough awareness of impact). The system is not entirely a physical reality, though it is based in a physical environment. It is also based in the mentality and even spirituality of what lives within it. Any system is effected by stress. A stress in this case is a mechanism used to change the system. Different disciplines of science are stresses on a system, because they utilize mechanisms to change the system.

Likewise magic is a stress that can be used to change the system, because of the mechanism that magic provides, which is not provided by the different disciplines of science, because while science enables from a purely physical end of the spectrum, magic enables change through a combination of physical, mental, and spiritual resources. An example of this resource would be the example of embodying a physical/mental resource of the human body, a neurotransmitter as an entity (thus creating a spiritual resource) which could be used to manifest a variety of possibilities, including creating altered states of mind, healing a person's mental state by working with the neurotransmitter, etc.

But what is the mechanism that makes magic an ontological presence, and enables its efficacy? That mechanism is Identity, specifically the ability to shape and change identity in order to mesh it with the identity if the possibility one wishes to manifest into reality. Identity can be considered to be both a state of existence and, in a system, a point or node of influence, connected to other nodes of influence. Magic uses identity as a means of manifesting probability into reality, by creating resonance between the identity of the magician and the identity of the probability the magician wants to make into reality (Think of magic as a string in a web, connecting one node of identity to another node of identity). The magician anchors a potential identity in the form of a probability to his/her actual identity, via magic to enable the probability a greater chance of manifesting than would occur if methods were not used to link the two identities together. Magic is a process of identification that allows the magician to change reality by altering the identity of that reality, or for that matter altering his or her own identity to conform to reality.

Magic uses methods to create resonance between different identities, or if you will between one version of reality and another. Probability becomes reality, when enough resonance is created between one identity and another so that the probability in essence becomes an extension of the existing identity of the magician.

This is my answer to Deo's question. It's also part of my ongoing work and experimentation with magic.

0 and 1, all and none til something is done

I came across an intriguing question that asked, "What would there be, if there was nothing?" My answer is, "The potential for everything, waiting to be manifested into something"

This answer boils down one of my approaches to magic and life into ten words. I relate it to magic, because it was in the works of William G. Gray that I first discovered 0 and 1, which is an intricate of my private mythos and relates to the concept of nothingness, everything, and something. This concept is also explored to some degree in the fantasy works of Raymond E. Feist, when his characters discuss some of the metaphysics of the fantasy universe, metaphysics which I might add are very workable and sane as a magical paradigm when it comes not only the relationships one has with the spirits, but also as a way of explaining something of how the universe itself works, but I digress.

I came across the concept of zeroing in  Magical Ritual Methods by William G. Gray (one of my favorite authors of magic).  The concept boils down to the idea that creation cannot occur without a void. What this means is that nothingness needs to exist in order for something to have a place. Some of this concept is echoed in the jazz musician Sun Ra's philosophy, particularly the cult film he did in the seventies about the outer space employment agency. What I get from Gray's concepts is that in zero, in nothing, lies the potential for everything. But until something is actually done with that potential, nothing can occur. ) is the embodiment of all and none. It represents both nothing and the potential for everything. 1 is the direction, the manifestation of potential into something. Once 1 occurs, and something is manifested the potential has been shaped into reality.

Much of Gray's approach to magic was based on the idea that you had to, as much as possible, return to a state of zero, of nothingness, before you created any magical act. The reason for that was to create a state of objectivity or neutrality, from which you were free of contaminating influences that might taint the manifestation you wanted to shape. The zero that a person used is the magical circle meant to represent that state of neutrality, wherein a person begins to take the potential for everything and shape into something that can be manifested into reality.

Much of what Gray wrote about in Magical Ritual Methods continues to influence my own approach to magic to this day. If there was ever a book I would consider to be a definitive manual on how and why magic works, I'd probably refer people to Magical Ritual Methods and tell them to read the book and then re-read and take copious notes while also integrating the practices described into their magical practice. I can guarantee that working with Gray's concepts will definitely challenge a person's perspectives on magic, because Gray is very thorough about exploring what magic seems to be, as well as explaining what he believes a person needs to be able to do, in order to really work with magic.

For me, 0 and 1 represents infinite potential within nothing and the capacity to shape that potential, to evoke it into something. Of course to do all of that, it's essential to train yourself, train and shape your internal reality so that it can mesh up with external reality while also working within nothing to achieve something. I first read Gray's works in my early twenties and even now I can still safely say that it influences how I think about and approach magic, right down to how I develop processes for working magic.

I've even used some of his concepts in meditation, diminishing a senses to a minutae of potential within a see of potential. This concept can also be used to speak to the soul of a symbol...which is a concept wherein a person finds the meaning of a symbol in meditation by zeroing the sense of self and integrating the symbol into him or herself to experience it directly.

So that's a snippet of my personal mythos when it comes to magic.

From nothing...came something...From 0 came 1.

To Define is to..?

Recently, I've also been following with great interest several posts on the definitions of magic on Plutonica .net. Go here, here, and here, to read the posts on plutonica.net. I find this discussion interesting, partially because I devoted two chapters of Multi-Media Magic to definitions of magic. One chapter focused on what I considered inaccurate or poor definitions of magic, while the second chapter focused on what I considered to be good definitions of magic. One author whose definition I did not include, was Aleister Crowley's definition which goes, "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will". Anyone who has read my books knows that I, on principle, do not include quotes or cite Crowley's work, for the simple fact that I feel that many other occult works are not nearly as recognized, because when people think of magic, they think of Mr. Crowley. I'd rather devote the majority of my writing to recognizing the works of other people and what they say about magic, because I believe a lot of people miss on some truly intriguing concepts when they focus only on Crowley's words and wit when it comes to magic.

All that said, I've never been impressed with Crowley's definition. I recognize that many occultists hold it up as the standard definition. In fact, if you go to Psyche's other site spiralnature, specifically to the magick index page, you'll note that the majority of definitions are derived from Crowley's definition. It would seem that Crowley nailed definition of magic down, so one might wonder, why Taylor, aren't you impressed by his definition.

Pretty simple really. It's vague. It uses abstract concepts and doesn't really define those concepts. What is Art? What is Science? What is Change? What is Will? These are abstract concepts used to define another abstract concept. He never fully explains what these concepts are, trusting instead in the reader's ability to divine the meaning of these concepts and put the puzzle together. This is a method, which Crowley is famous for (as are many, many academics and magicians the world over) of cunningly using words words to test how much a person really knows. In other words, the definition offered is written in a way that is left deliberately vague. Even the illustration he offers afterwards as an example of magic, of writing and publishing a book is not a magical act perse, as people who don't even practice magic and think of it as superstition write and get published everyday. The illustration is a way of interpreting how that writing and publishing occurred, but it doesn't prove that he has done magic to make it happen. Overly semantic or pedantic? Perhaps, but as I point out in Multi-Media Magic, definitions are often inaccurately treated as "is" or "Essence" statements, when, in fact what the definition really represents is the agenda or agency of the writer and what s/he beliefs something ought to be defined as.

To be fair to Crowley, in the theorem section of Magick in Theory and Practice, he provides a better explanation or definition of magic, by explaining the process of how magic works via theorems and illustrations. I don't agree with all of his theorems or his illustrations as definitions or examples of magic, but what he offers in that section is a better explanation of how magic could work as opposed to the more commonly used definition of his I referred to above. I still think his definitions are sloppy, because it ultimately boils down to the concept that everything we do is magic, as long as we set our intent to do it. That could be the case, but I tend to find that while magic is an integral part of my life, that doesn't mean that everything I set out to do is a magical act. In fact my main bone of contention with Crowley's definition and any definition derived from Crowley's work can be summed up in the following quote:

"Naming and describing are acts of entitlement. Through such linguistic practices, we give our experiences meaning and make sense of reality. By entitling a given phenomenon, we locate that phenomenon in a set of beliefs about the world that includes beliefs about existence-status (what things are real or not) and essence-status (what qualities we may reliably predicate about the phenomenon). Because the range of possible entitlements is theoretically infinite, any given act of entitling should be seen as a persuasive act that encourage language users to understand that which is entitled in particular ways rather than others" (Schiappa 2003, p. 116)

In other words, Crowley's definition describes magic in a particular way, while also reinforcing the values and meanings that Crowley associates with it. And if you wonder why I don't quote Crowley, it's because there are other perspectives, other views on magic that are equally as valid, but all too often ignored because Crowley's definition is not questioned nearly enough, but is accepted nearly a century later as holy writ.

Where Crowley's definition might be useful is to consider it as a paradigm shift, as a way of viewing reality through a very specific lens or perspective, while using discourse and language to embody that perspective. Treat everything as a magical act to play with your perspective. However you can take this trick and apply to it any discipline. You could view your actions through a semiotic or memetic lens (the popular choice of late among magicians in the know!). You could view your actions through a neuroscience perspective. Take Crowley's definition and swap a few words and you change discipline and paradigm for perceiving the world. That's really what Crowley's definition is...a paradigm, a way of viewing the world. It can be useful, though it can also be equally limiting.

There's a book I would urge any magician to read, which I think of as an essential book for both the practice of magic and also the use of definitions. It's called Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning by Edward Schiappa. It's a book on rhetoric, but it's very applicable to magic, because it examines how we use definitions to define and shape reality, as can be seen in this quote, "Definitions always serve interests and advance values, and they always require the exercise of power to be efficacious" (Schiappa 2003, p. 177). You know, put in the right context, that could be a definition of magic as well.

Re-Thinking and Re-Making Babalon into a Wealth Deity

I've been spending some thinking about my relationship to Babalon, both in relationship to the Elemental Love working I'm doing and also in where she fits or doesn't fit in the overall scheme of my life. And then this weekend I finished reading Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill and I realized where Babalon fits into my life, and I had a better appreciation of the lessons she's teaching me in this year's working. In Think and Grow Rich Napoleon Hill discusses the necessity of mastering sexual energy in order to direct your creativity and imagination to manifest your goals of wealth. He incorporates a number of "occult" principles into his writing, which as an aside, I'm surprised more magicians haven't realized. In anycase, I began to think about Babalon and desire and the Strength card. It's true that Babalon is the sacred whore and the great mother, but it occurs to me that's much more than that. She represents desire, but in the Strength card, she also represents the ability to find inner strength to harness those desires. She holds a cup up, but is it really a cup of abominations? Or is it a cup of wealth, a realization of success in managing the internal desires to manifest the desired result?

One of my own recent realizations has been that I have to be strong for myself. This means I have to choose to master my desires in order to manifest the reality I desire to live in. While giving into my desires can lead to pleasure in the short, in the long term mastering my desires can lead me to achieving my goals. Upon some meditation and reflection, I decided that Babalon is my wealth deity. She can and has inspired me to master my desires so that I can manifest my goals. I put the bottle of red wine and the Strength Candle on the wealth shrine altar. I placed the sacred blade of desire on the altar as well.

Wealth is really about mastering yourself enough to know what you want and how to use all of your resources to achieve it. It's about finding the necessary strength to focus yourself on what really matters to you as well as tempering yourself so that while you acknowledge and enjoy your desires, you also use them to propel you to greater heights. Babalon embodies this concept by riding and directing the beast of desire, while holding up the cup of wealth to show the results of mastering the beast. She also embodies success, in and of herself, because she shows that success does involve being prepared to make sacrifices right up to and including your ego, in order to be transformed in your understanding of what you are giving to her and receiving from her. The success that comes from that is an internal success in terms of knowing and mastering your desires and external success in channeling the resultant discipline into what you want to accomplish.

Following Napoleon Hill's advice, I've decided to create a council I'd meet in a meditative state. Naturally Babalon is one of people on the council, as is Napoleon Hill, my wife Lupa, and other people/entities that are useful for the wealth work I'm currently working on in my life.

Pop Culture Magic Anthology

I'm editing an anthology on pop culture magic. It's nearly finished, I'd say. It's fascinating to read what other people have done or are doing with pop culture and magic. It gives me a renewed appreciation for that field of magic. I'll admit I'd become a bit cynical about that particular area, but after reading and editing the articles I may actually write another pop culture magic book down the line. *shrugs* or not. We'll see. The fact that I'm finding renewed appreciation in it is enough. Not everything has to involve writing. I've been doing a lot of thinking about my place in the occult/pagan community. I posted in my live journal earlier today about some of my reservations and whether I really identified as an occultist anymore. I practice magic and mostly I think that's useful enough as a descriptor of an area of my life, but not the entirety of it.

I think the practice a person takes on is really a personal thing...you make of it what you will. It's easy sometimes to get caught up in what others are doing, but what others do is not what I do...it can be similar, but I'm also on my own journey. I need to remember to honor that.

Advanced books: Is there a market for them?

Recently Carl Weshke, the owner of Llewellyn books put up a call for readers, asking them to email him about advanced books, i.e. what they wanted Llewellyn to publish that would constitute advanced material. Oddly enough, Donald Michael Kraig had recently written an article in New Worlds Magazine (A Llewellyn magazine), which seems to contradict with Carl is looking for in advanced magic. In Donald's article, he suggests instead that it's not deeper books, but broader books which are more important, and that there's no such thing as advanced material. I disagree with the sentiments of the latter article. I believe that it is possible to write and publish advanced books on magic and find an audience for them, but it strikes me as odd that there is such a fundamental disconnect, or rather contradiction at work within a publisher that wants to publish advanced works, but also discourages the concept. Granted, it could be argued that DMK doesn't speak for Llewellyn, as opposed to Carl Weshke, but he is an editor there, as well as an author. Then too, there's the question of whether Llewellyn ultimately can publish advanced books. Their focus is on trying to reach the broadest demographic, which is impossible to do with an advanced book. An advanced book is for a smaller audience and will generally utilize discourse that is focused toward that audience. The goal isn't to sell books to as many people as possible, but rather to meet a specific market's need, which necessarily limits the number of people who will buy the book.

Finally, The wildhunt as weighed in on this issue, as well as commentators. The sentiment there seems to be that the focus on advanced magic and esoteric technologies is too limited, with not enough focus on advanced pagan spirituality and theology and philosophy. While I think their is a point to be made for the lack of advanced books on those subjects, I also think it's important to find a way to bring some practical applications to those topics. Thus a book on advanced spirituality or theology could still include some form of practical exercises or magical work that integrates the concepts into the person's life. Then too there are publishers such as Asphodel press who do in fact offer a venue for publishing books on advanced spirituality, etc. The difference is asphodel isn't a big publisher, with access to big box book stores, while Llewellyn is...and perhaps that's where some of the discontent from some authors is, because presumably those big box book stores will sell lots of their books...but let me just say that any book of an advanced topic generally will not sell well in big box stores. The audience has to be reached through different means, through personal interaction, but also through recognizing that your audience probably won't go to Barnes and Nobles to buy a book on advanced magic.

As someone who helps publish intermediate and advanced books on magic, and spiritual practices, what I find time and again is that the sales are not driven by big bookstores, but by knowing the audience and recognizing it's not a large target demographic. And that's okay. It works, because the people who do buy the books usually end up being loyal and continuing to support the publisher, while also spreading word of mouth to other people. The market success is based on knowing what the audience wants, and also accepting that what is wanted doesn't need to sell in large numbers to be a success (though I'll never complain if large numbers sell). The bottom line isn't what's important. It's the value the audience places in the material and also the author's voice being fully listened and allowed to show through in the books that are written.

podcast interviews on Tarot connection

Interivew with Lupa on Totem cards Interview with me on experiments with tarot and magic

 You know in listening to this episdoe, I'm struck again by how much the ritual I did in it, already has changed my life. Leisa, the host, mentioned that each time a person listened to it, the invocation would occur again...and so there's some space/time magic for you...but also that show and in fact that day made me recognize some realities that were important to me.

The transmutation continues...

Neuro-sorcery pt 1

Readers of my book Inner Alchemy will recall that some of my experimental work focused on working with neurotransmitters as entities. I've lately been reading a book called the User's Guide to the Brain by John Ratey. In one section, he focuses on Attention and the functions in the brain related to it. He suggests that a cause for ADHD (and to some degree depression) is lower then normal levels of dopamine, serotonin, and Endorphins in the nucleus accumbens, which is the reward center of the brain. People who have lower levels of these neurotransmitters will tend to be more focused on extreme behaviors apparently so they can get the rewards they want, and less able to focus on taks that don't seem to have more obvious rewards in sight. I found this rather intriguing and it presents an opportunity to further some of my work with neurotransmitters. My thought is that if a person has ADHD, but knew how to work with a neurotransmitter entity or several of them, the person could work with the entities to produce more of the neurotransmitters and regulate the ADHD. This kind of magical work could be done as a supplement to medicine being taken or done by itself.

I made contact with dopamine today, and will be contacting the other NT's soon. While I've never been diagnosed with ADHD, it would still be useful to work with the NT's to see if in fact, in working with that part of the brain, it's possible to focus the attention better.

I'll be writing more about this as events progress.

Dancing with Dehara

In the late nineties, I picked up the original Wraeththu series and had my life changed by it. I knew right after I read it that I would meet Storm Constantine. I couldn't tell you why I knew (at that time), but I knew it had to happen. Shortly after, I did in fact make contact with her online and we started talking about magic and Wraeththu. I remember telling her that I felt called to meet her. Only later did I realize that Thiede, one of the characters of the series had facilitated that. Thiede is the Aghama, the central god head of the Wraeththu universe and also the master of space/time (and yes an inspiration for Space/Time Magic). It wasn't that surprising that he decided to reach out and tap us both to work together. He wanted something more than just a fantasy series from Storm. I worked with the Deharan system of magic for a few years...it was only when I moved to Seattle that the work slackened off. After moving to Portland though, I recently got pinged by Thiede..."Well what's keeping you from doing the work? I want you to start working through the caste systems in the first book and the get back to work on what I had you working on before".

Over the last couple of weeks, I've started integrating Dehara back into my life. I finished up the first two castes of Ara and Neoma and I'm about to do Byrnie again. I've felt as if some of the wheels in my head have been freshly cleaned and regreased by the work. And each time I've called the Dehara, I've felt their presence, sharp, strong. And I wonder how I could forget that.

Seems like Storm and other people have been pinged as well. It's as if a signal went off and everyone raised their heads, blinked at each other and got back to work. In my case, some very necessary internal work has had to occur, before I could go further with this particular system of magic.

A lot of my internal alchemy, sex magic, and space/time magic work  has been inspired by Wraeththu. The internal work I've been doing is reflective of some of the path work that goes into the first six castes of Dehara, which are very much focused on self-knowledge and recognition of how a person approaches reality. Once a person recognizes that, s/he also recognizes how the magical work done can effect reality. The magician is trained, in this system, to cultivate the internal in order to effect the external, while also appreciating that the external necessarily not only corresponds to the internal, but also effects how thei nternal responds...it's a cycle.

The other night I did a purification ritual, calling the Dehara into my own, purifying certain tools, rebuilding relationships with them and sharing breath...exchanging essence for essence. I'm dancing with the Dehara again. I'll be sure to post updates as the work continues.