9

The Effectiveness of Chaos Magic and the Nature of Spirits.

So yesterday was April Fools Day and I decided to make a joke post about me placing myself in a Chaos Magic trance in 1995 that led to all my current work.

Like all good jokes it touched on some real issues, including some that I have been meaning to address, so in a sense it was an excuse to make THIS post today because I knew all the right people would respond.

But first a clarification to the last post: the references to BS were meant to have a triple meaning:

1. Acronym for Belief System.
2. The idea that belief is the active force in magic being BS
3. The fact that I was making a Bullshit post on April fools day.

The one thing I did NOT want to convey, but am afraid I did is that Chaos Magic is Bullshit, because it’s not. Not at all. I made this clear in the comments, but I felt like it was a point worth making here. It deeply effected my early training, and when people see signs of it in Strategic Sorcery, there are reasons for that.

In fact Andrieh made an important point when he said that “serious non-internet Chaos Magicians get better results than traditional mages”. I don’t know about “better” results – we will tackle that chestnut in the next post – but certainly equal and impressive. When you look at people like Andrieh, and Gordon, and Peter Carroll’s recent works, it is clear that Chaos has much to offer to people not sold on the idea that everything has to come from a Grimoire or a tradition. Three things that come to mind immediately are:

1. Chaos magic serves and arises from the world we live in today. It does not fetishize Renaissance Europe, 2nd century Greece, or 1920’s rural Americaas the time and place that was ‘magic’.

2. Chaos Magic realizes that Spirits are only PART of the magic, not the whole damn thing. This is the only thing that I did not like about the new Skinner book on the PGM – the half of the introduction that had little to do with the subject at hand, but much proselytizing about magic being all about spirits and anything outside of that being new-fangled bunk. As someone initiated in the Tantric tradition, I can tell you that spirit work is but a small part of the work in that tradition, and need not be the end-all be-all of magic over all.

3. Chaos magic offers a different view of spirits than he UBER-Traditional fundamentalist idea that these are all completely self-existent beings, and those are their real names, and the hierachies are just as solid and immutable as the desk my laptop is on.

It is this idea that I want to talk about further.

I have said many times that there is a difference between fictional characters and entities traditionally acknowledged as Gods and Spirits. I still hold that there is a big gap between Scroodge McDuck and Dzambhala*, BUT I also do not buy into the idea that all the Gods and Spirits of mythology are fundamentally real and self-existent entirely apart from us either.

In fact if I had to place myself on the spectrum I would say that my views fall closer to Chaos Magic view than totally old-skool real-as-written view.

Gordon today wrote a piece on Rune Soup refuting the commonly held notion that spirits being no different than fictional characters is a core tenet of Chaos Magic. This is a mistake that I myself made, and while I totally understand that this is not a core tenet, I still have not heard a good explanation of what the core tenets of Chaos Magic actually are.

That said, I am kind of apophatic about the nature of these things. I have seen clear evidence that the spirits are NOT simply in our individual minds, but I also find it kind of silly to adhere to a view of the world where everyone’s conceptions of spirits running the world and time is absolutely as-written. In fact I would say that there is pretty good evidence that they are not entirely separate from us.

The models need to get bigger and more stretchy. Perhaps the archangel Michael that shows up during an evocation is neither just some angelic dude out there that I called NOR a part of my own mind I have exteriorized. It is perhaps something that I exist within the mind of instead. At very least it exists differently at different levels of spirit/matter/time/probability and has multiple pasts and futures. To think too linearly would mean that we have to buy into that one true religion garbage again, and I don’t think many of us would want that.

This is the reason that I have not published many channeled texts or chats with angels and demons describing themselves. It’s not that I haven’t had such conversations and received such messages, its that I look at them afterward and think – how is this useful? It rarely is.

Most of these spiritual hierarchies and emanationist ideas of the universe are, for as complicated as they may seem at first, WAY too simple. They are not a reflection of the messy world I see and leave no room for the mind that says “well, we don’t know yet, but lets explore” – Chaos Magic embraces the mess and allows for that exploration better than any tradition out there. That is one way that it has certainly influenced Strategic Sorcery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*There are places where there is overlap – for instance when an author writes inspired by spirit or spiirtual experience. For instance while Lovecraft certainly denied the existence of his Chthulu Mythos Entities as being real, he did mention that they were inspired by fairly deep and moving dreams.

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 9 comments
Bill Trumpler

Nicely put, Jason. After reading that I see that we are more or less on the same page about Chaos Magic.

Reply
Aidan Wachter

Well put. My experiences with chaos magic over many years are what led me to to realize that I personally work best within a ‘spirit model’ magically. I am aware that this is likely largely perceptual- it’s how I am wired. I talk to ‘things’ all the fucking time like a loon. So while I tried to avoid it for a long time, now I embrace it and my work is far more effective.

At the same time I am also with you that ‘that ain’t all there is’! This became particularly in dealing with exorcisms & unwanted possession, where the first steps (for me) have had no real ‘spirit’ component at all (on my end, it’s probably different for the possessing/troubling entity!) and are more pure blast.

This is part of what I like about your SS material- you cover all of the bases, giving the student enough info & tech to make their own blend that works for them. I have always seen your material as essentially related to chaos magic, even if it seemed that was not your intention.

Aidan

Reply
Richard Norris

The Neoplatonism of Proclus has been pretty influencing on me when it comes to the issue of a “model”. The idea of the Gods being separate individualities, but being IN each other in an ontological sense even as they manifest reality, is kind of the starting point for that particular philosophy. With Hermetics tacked on as a kind of natural appendage to that view, we are all in “the image of God”. So while Gods are involved in the continued existence of the world and thus our own continued existence, we have our own metaphysical capabilities as well. When we are engaged in magic or even culture, there is feedback, where the names and even personalities of the Gods, daimons, and angels can change. Consider certain ordained gnostic folks telling a demon that it wishes for the demon to be reconciled with its source and you get a sense of what I am saying. On our own, without spirits in magic, there are some pretty interesting things humans can pull off without intervention, be it micro-PK, remote viewing, or telepathy. These phenomenon suggest a sort of ontological relation between ourselves and the wider universe which might explain the efficacy of purely intention-based or “energy” based magic.

Reply
Frater Benedict

I have gravitated towards practicing Druidry, an undefined and admittedly heterodox form of Christianity of Agrippa-like type, late imperial and neoplatonic Cultus Deorum, some sort of Buddhism and Chaos Magical psychological experiments with private mythology simultaneously, but I still have no model for how this would be possible. The mix is not entirely unlike your own, but for ‘gnostic’ insert ‘ultra-nestorian, Eckehart-reading, universalist adherent to the eternally-sacrificed-Lamb-theory’, and for ‘Tibetan Vajrayana’ insert ‘Taiwanese Chan and Japanese Tendai’.

According to my experience, angels behave like they are real, and – whatever their ontological status – Buddhas cause a beneficial influence. St. Anthony of Padua helps me find lost things despite I’m a heretic, and planetary experiments works at least sometimes. I am not able to synthesise all this into a grand theory about everything: Especially the Buddhist rejection of forms and the Neo-Platonic idea (pun intended) about eternal forms are hard to reconcile.

Is your advise just: “well, we don’t know yet, but lets explore”?

Reply
    Stone Dog

    @ Frater Benedict
    Ever since I fell in love with the platonic dialogues I have felt that “we don’t know yet” goes a long way.

    That may seem simple on the surface, yet take a look at people interested in the occult in any capacity, and tell me how many of them are able to suspend judgement and keep LOOKING, keep trying to UNDERSTAND things instead of delegating some form of authority to do their thinking/exploring for them.

    I’d say 5% would be an optimistic estimate.

    And yet, that single line is what enables one to learn from seemingly contradictory traditions and paradigms and gradually approximate the big picture that would resolve the contradictions.
    Both things – learning from contradictory models/paradigms etc and approximating the big picture – can make a big difference, both in terms of “range” and personal growth.

    @ Jason and everyone
    This is the kind of post I come here to read, thank you very much.

    While I agree with you that the models we have are way too simple, I would add that they are too simple as REPRESENTATIONS of reality, in a “scientific” sense (understanding/explaining stuff).

    At the same time, I find that simplicity can be an advantage when we do the practical work (using stuff to affect ourself and the environment). The more complex and open a model is, the less firm feels the ground on which I am “pushing”, so having a completely “open” model of the universe is not without its problems for a sorcerer…well, for me al least.

    Maybe it’s just that I still lack experience, but somehow, I think that if the only system I knew was tibetan magic and I believed in that tradition literally and wholeheartedly, all other things being equal I would wield it much more effectively than I do now, knowing that whatever Kurukulla is, it’s probably nothing as simple, consistent, and self-contained as the traditional view of her.
    Obviously, it would be very difficult or even impossible for me to work any other system. Still, I sometimes ask myself if we are paying the greater degree of approximation to truth allowed by this “global sorcery” with a loss of practical effectiveness. At least in the current phase.

    Reply
Ivy

“The models need to get bigger and more stretchy. Perhaps the archangel Michael that shows up during an evocation is neither just some angelic dude out there that I called NOR a part of my own mind I have exteriorized. It is perhaps something that I exist within the mind of instead. At very least it exists differently at different levels of spirit/matter/time/probability and has multiple pasts and futures.”

Yes! Or maybe He’s BOTH.

I’m of the mind that contradictions don’t need to be resolved or eliminated, but embraced. The Gods are entirely separate real entities AND the Gods are all in my head. I say that both are true and our limited ability to believe both at the same time is the problem.

Reply
Dakkel kur a

The mind is the forgotten gate. Maybe the reason these entities seem to be both, aspects of our minds and entities of unique existence is because they are abstract powers of creation, maleable. And when we call them up, is more of a channeling and projection, thus the symbology and framework we use to connect with these forces, shape and color the experience. It is the logical and conscious mind categorize the exoerience and fit it within the framework. It is why a Pentecostal feels the Holy Spirit and a yogi raises the kundalini yet the characteristics of the experience is essentially the same, it is why Muhammad did not knew what talk to him in the cave until a friend told him that it was an angel. It is why, most evocation books will sugest a period of subjective immersion where one becomes aqua tied with the cosmology of the entices and hierarchy. Just my view on it.

Reply
sylvainsab

I don’t understand why people have these endless debates about “are beings/daemons/angels/spirits imaginary or real, parts/aspects of our minds or independent beings ? Well, to me it’s both, but in the first place you have to tell what YOU are and what THEY are, what is the mind and what does it contain ? It’s simple really : « You are nothing, and thus you are also everything. »

Reply

Leave a Reply: