THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.magick.chaos
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Types of Magic and Social Influence (was FAQ?)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 04:48:27 GMT

50010912 VI! om Hail Satan!

"David Cantu"  writes about constructing FAQs for amc:
>>>I wouldn't mind seeing one that was totally misleading...claiming Caroll is
>>>worth reading....heh, that's almost Too believable!

prajna:
>> Carroll (Peter) is probably worth reading to find out what Kaos Magic
>> kan be*come*. of course it probably helps if one has had exposure to
>> all of the people he ripped off first.

"David Cantu" :
>In 'merica we got it all second hand, after the revolution was over 
>in the U.K.

what did the revolution include? when reading Crowley I got the impression
that free-form ritual was encouraged, though social orgs might benefit
from having some kind of standard (which seems accepted by Chaos mages).

too often I've seen modern mages unfamiliar with Crowley's expressions to
pit themselves against Golden Dawn and Thelemic ceremonialists due to the
perception that free-form rite was contrary to these traditional paths. I
have affirmation from members of these traditions that this is absolutely
NOT the case, despite the dogmatic assertions of the few who may be taken
mistakenly as representative.

this seems to reflect typical traditional branching: misunderstanding
leads to reactionary response and a supposed distancing from the false
characterization of one's contemporaries. this leads to the re-
packaging of conventional methods and ideas (often in naive ways,
reflecting the indiscipline and poor education of the 'groundbreaker')
in some attractive new wrapper. what, exactly, the differences from
one "old" traditional instruction to another "new" instruction might
be is of greater interest to me than how fabulous or 'wrong' the old
guard might have been. so far I've seen little that indicates to me
that Chaos magic is novel, at least as far as its expression in the
works mentioned above, though its emphasis does seem more solitary.

>I was lucky enough to trip onto some of the early stuff before this, so by
>the time Carroll hit our shores I was already practicing.  

what were you practicing, exactly?

>...I already had a purely material system worked out based on the mind 
>as mixing board...with a little quantum bullshit thrown in for bad measure.
>I wasn't too surprised to find out his work had created a move toward more
>dogmatic thinking in U.S. magicians, for instance terms like chaote.

my first exposure to these were zines (e.g. Chaos Int'l) and copies of 
text (Grant, Spare, Savage, Sherwin, others). Carroll's work (e.g. what 
was in some zines and "Liber Null...") struck me as comparable to 
Crowley's in that it refrained from pointing out sources (a fault), but 
also far inferior in its construction and written form. 

(reflecting on usenet and FAQ-archival)
>>>> The 'collectors' of such things argue, loudly and ad nauseum, that FAQs
>>>> answer questions for newbies so regulars don't have to take time to do
>>>> so.  This is specious nonsense, a red herring tossed out to deflect
>>>> attention from their real motives.
>>>
>>>The motives are control as I see it, a control of philosophy and direction.
>>
>> philosophy no, substance yes.
>
>But controlling a groups substance influences their philosophy.  Use
>something mundane like music.  If pop music is all you've been exposed to
>then you don't even know to look for jazz, let alone whether you would like
>it.  In my case the music would be more obscure than jazz but you should see
>the painting.

that's why I try to familiarize myself with as many different types of
magic and expression about it as I am able. repetitive inquiries,
especially when coming from someone obviously new to a forum, will be
asked every so often whether or not there is a (well-crafted) FAQ which
points out that there are no Absolute Answers (a noise-reduction FAQ). 
such a FAQ doesn't inhibit unique or unusual expressions of response 
to those queries, it just helps newbies avoid dogmatically promoting 
their favoured tradition or method, or entering the forum with a more
graceful, and less flame-ridden, trajectory.

>>>For instance note naga's tendency to set up a post to only send responses to
>>>NGs where He thinks it appropriate.  I have been caught in this once and had
>>>to repost just to have my answer appear on alt.magick where I started it
>>>from.
>>
>> isn't it K00l?!!! 'course if I do like a topic but don't want it in the
>> alt.magick newsgroup (because it deals with mysticism proper or religion,
>> for example), then I make sure to cross-post it to places I read. I get
>> to spin my followers, just like you do. I request that when you reply
>> to a troll, or make one yourself, for example, that you set the followup
>> to alt.flame.

>But over time these N.G.s become communities, not just isolated word
>commodities to be shuffled like bank notes.

influence toward contributing substance to more relevant forums is not
to treat them like bank notes but to put directional spin on currents
of conversation, especially for newbies who know little better about
what they are doing such that they wander off-topic.

>I may spin my "followers", but I was never seeking tail gaiters, and really
>just think of them as friends I can converse with.

sorry, I was unclear. by my 'followers' here I was referring to those
who followup my post. if the subject I am talking about with them is
not topical to the forum in which it is posted, then I am likely to
cross-post to the more relevant forum and, if I am not speaking to
the intersection of the subjects, set the followup to the appropriate
forum for its discussion (religion or mysticism, for example, in the
case of a magic forum). I call this 'responsible posting methods'.

>Flame is all over Usenet.  If you gathered all the flame in one place it
>world light the world on fire.  Let it disperse.

when I am speaking of flame, I'm talking about personal disputing which
does not truly contribute to the substance of the newsgroup. while it
may be to your interest to see it engulf a forum or (somehow unexplained)
coalesce into a single forum/post, mine is to add more fuel to the fire
(i.e. provide it with greater actual conceptual meaning) and see it burn 
white hot in the light of understanding. personal feuds I find contain 
very little light and very much heat, to borrow your metaphors.

>>>This is obviously a type of control he exerts on several newsgroups.
>>
>> influence and control are different things whose subtle particulars
>> seem to be lost on you.

>Alright, influence.  But influence is an excercise who's extreme goal is
>control.

dominating influence is different than participative influence. the 
latter preserves a more equable relation, and where it preserves the 
integrity of the means of communication, is a community service.

>The question of using magick to seek truth or to hide from it seems
>relevant.

do you think that selected archival of information is *necessarily* 
a way of "hiding from truth"? what is this truth you are talking about 
and how can one use magic to seek it or hide from it? do you think that 
everyone has the same value for truth in their use or practice of magic?

>...I've seen spell casting harm the caster 

have you ever seen evolutionary work harm the worker or those around
the worker? I have, which is why I wonder whether you've seen it.
I wonder where we ought to draw the lines of personal responsibility
for these harms. is it our job to prevent harm from coming to anyone?

>and I've seen you make attempts that seem to water down some aspects 
>of evolutionary work.

I guess it can go both ways. could you elaborate on particular areas 
you think I've watered down or overlooked?

>Even my own fall as I allowed things to get out of hand was used 
>by you to belittle evolutionary work; however, yours was a reaction 
>to a perceived attack.

can evolutionary work stand some challenges? is it unworthy of the 
type of treatment I've seen evolutionary workers dish out to what 
are perceived as 'competing paths'?

blessed beast!

nagasiva
-- 
emailed replies may be posted  -----   "sa avidya ya vimuktaye"   ----- 
"that which liberates is ignorance"  http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
    hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catalogues@luckymojo.com