15 September 2005

Simple occult diagram

The initial concept for this was from either Donald Tyson or Ramsey Dukes, I think. More people need to think about this simple concept. Anyone that actually practices magic will understand how it fits in there. Those interest, might I suggest you read Marik's work on sigils and try one out for yourself. The results are astounding, and they're easy to do. Later, I'll edit a post dealing strictly with sigils — theory, practice, and results. For now, I need to get some work done and finish the readings Father Jordan Stratford gave me.

12 comments:

channel null said...

I can't help but think that magickal practice has a huge subjective component. Like Zac suggests, "Magick is the cultivation of intention. Full stop." Yes, I've most certainly tooled around with the reality outside of me with success, but in light of interior changes, that all seems sort of beside the point. I feel like the diagram needs another dimension, at least.

michael said...

I agree... a third dimension in some pyramidic fashion.

Fell said...

I see what you guys are saying, but I am thinking that the subjective component of magic can be more accurately tied into mysticism whereas magic would be the manifestation of such intent. Bringing about objectifiable results via an understanding and control of the subtle senses that we develop through magical practice is what I think this would accurately portray?

Something such as Qi Gong, where you are engineering dynamic geometrics out of "energy" that you feel outside of your everyday waking state, that, to me, is an objective manipulation of feeling to field results.

I could be wrong, too, however.

Fell said...

It's also interesting to note that sometimes esoterics are referred to as either "occult arts" or "occult sciences," depending on the conversation.

Fell said...

And as one more thing, I suppose we could also look at the three types of spiritual personas, as put forth on Pop Occulture: called "gunas." These gunas are sattva (purity, clarity), rajas (passion), and tamas (inertia). The religious expressions or spiritualities, are: Jnana, karma and bhakti.

But then this would also imply degrees of aptitude amongst theologians, scientists, and artists. Not that I disagree with that, it may actually be quite a bit more accurate. As Tim put it:

To rephrase it in my own words, a sattvic person might say: “I am equal to God“, while a rajasic person might say “I serve God” and a tamasic person might say, “I surrender to God.” The sattvic is concerned primarily with knowledge, the rajasic with action and community and the tamasic with humility and prayer. The great thing about Hinduism is that it recognizes “different strokes for different folks.”

The most adept in understanding in each field — from the skilled Tom Hanks of the world to the rat-racing popularity contests of Jared Letos — would be an equivalent of sattva to rajas to tamas.

Science has theirs, the art world has theirs, et al. So yes, I suppose this might imply a certain pyramidal third dimension to the diagram. Near the apex of the z-axis I would believe that these sattvas would tie together in a similar pursuit of wisdom through their personal lives/experiences… simply made different depending upon the methods of expression chosen and the fields they've incorporated themselves into.

As for a more subjective depth to the diagram, I sorta understand but I ain't seeing it yet.

:)

channel null said...

Speaking of Jared Leto, his terrible, terrible NuMetal band played at a free, all-ages show that I got sucked into last weekend. They had to put up a plexiglass shield to prevent his back-to-school performing ass from being swarmed with fourteen-year-old girls. I wasn't particularly envious--do you like braces?--but it can't be that bad a way to pass time or venereal disease.

Impishness aside, I'll agree with the mysticism-magick dichtomy, although some things, like banishing rituals, self-healing, and "energy work" straddle subjective and objective, or operate exactly at that border. I was always a fan of the Thaumaturgy/Theurgy dichtomy, but then again, even a mysticism-laden working like the Abramelin has the operator binding and employing demons. Maybe the confusion is that for objective change to occur, significant subjective change must first occur?

Fell said...

Heh, seriously, if you were rich and had no cares in the world, an army of nubile pubescent girls flowing over you wouldn't be a bad thing. Hollywood stars don't get in trouble like the rest of us do that way.

As for your second point, I agree. I think that definitely can be expounded on in Einstein's quote:

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.

Perhaps we could also state that (substituting design for art to be more pragmatic): Magic without design is lame; design without magic is blind? This would definitely ring of the chaos magic paradigm, but has it really developed much since the revolution that writers such as Spare, Carroll, Hine, U.·.D.·., and a few others have put forth? Just me personally, I haven't really seen anything new in the past 10–15 years. Nothing noteworthy at least. The only things I've really gotten excited for, in occult lit, has been the recent translations from Italian of Julius Evola, and these new texts from Dr Joseph C. Lisiewski.

channel null said...

I got excited about Evola--Intro to Magic and the Yoga of Power are good, but Ride the Tiger's Shambala translation is thick as a brick. If you haven't, read Kaos 14... Anyway, Chaos could stand to benefit from a "rebranding."

I'm not totally sure what you mean about "design," though. What's a good example of design in concordance with the occult, and vice-versa?

Fell said...

In my mind, design as a verb, a process in which one creates the processes necessary by which to achieve a goal. Of course, magic is by definition about bringing about change in accordance with one's will, albeit that is harder to comprehend than one initially figures, design is very much the same thing in concept. One creates an external interface by which to interact with reality, design, and allows us to solve problems or make life more hospitable or whatever. The other, magic, allows one to intuit and extrapolate a personal, subjective understanding of a myth-based or internal energetic interface by which to weave change.

I'm also just playing with words here trying to make sense of it, too.

I guess, magic on its own, is like like splashing around in the cosmic puddle of one's life. Just as science undirected by some sort of spiritual theme just runs amok in any direction and what Einstein may have intended to be the next best vacuum cleaner turns out to vaporise Hiroshima.

The magical culture that exists perhaps should adopt more design-oriented thinking in that they could bring about a bigger social betterment, but via their own temperament? According to some, art doesn't exist unless the viewer gives it meaning, so perhaps chaos magic or magic in general needs some sort of organisation in order to aid in the development of the four orders a a whole?

Who knows…

ps — Sorry about implementing the letter verification codes when posting replies; I know it's annoying. I started receiving spam posts.

lvx23 said...

Currently almost done with Duke's SSOTBME which is where, I believe, he first proposed this simple diagram. The take-away bit for me is that the four quadrants are the fundamental ways (so far) of looking at and evaluating the world of experience. The failure and hubris of science is that it presumes that it is the only way to look at things. You can see this creeping into a lot of magickal theories which try to bend magick to scientific principles (eg quantum tunneling is evidence for telepathy). Dukes makes a good point that magick should stand on it's own and that science is equally valid in it's own right (as are art & religion). The ideal perspective would address every situation from all four views to have a comprehensive understanding.

Magick seeks the meaning of experience while science strives for the mechanism of experience.

Fell said...

Yeah I agree with LVX here. I think that, in my experience with magic, that it is similar, but it searches out a mechanistic and reproducable exhibit of feeling. Rather than the gears and gizmos of the scientific paradigm, the magical paradigm makes use of symbols and metaphors to bring about feelings. And anyone that has done any sort of out-of-body or chakra work knows that the feelings are very real indeed.

There can even be a more mechanistic approach to it all, which I find in Qi Gong where they apply geometric shapes and motions into the feelings to obtain desired results.

LVX, I'm glad to hear you got into Ramsey Dukes. He's truly a remarkable writer!

Fell said...

Now that I think more on the above note: particulars of certain "themed" paradigms or gestalts can yield more powerful feelings. Thus, invoking a "god" or certain point of view can bring about feelings and interpretations of symbols that another wouldn't be as conducive to.

I know this is at least the case in chaos magic where they really push paradigm shifting as a practice. Has any contemporaries developed any sort of well laid-out systems of analogy or symbolism? The closest I can think of is emulation of tv and film characters and events (see: The Crow, Fight Club).