I suspected some of you might be interested in some notes towards a critique of Chaos magick that I posted today. Original post here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/synesis/86321.html
Reproduced below: anon
This series of notes might, at some point, turn into an essay, tentatively titled ‘Why chaos magic is a load of balls’, or possibly something less inflammatory. I’ve said to a couple of people over the last few months that I would get all this down on paper, so here goes some notes.
I’m going to think about Chaos magic primarily from the works of Peter Carroll, since that’s the point from which most Chaos magicians orient themselves.
Paradigms, Belief, Meta-Belief
Chaos Magick as expressed by Carroll seems to consist of the fundamental principle that magical, spiritual or religious beliefs are separated into self-consistent systems of cosmological belief (‘paradigms’, adopted from Kuhn) , and ‘gnosis’ (a state of magical awareness) is conditioned into particular forms by those systems of belief.
This automatically sets up a number of assumptions
1. That ‘gnosis’ is a fundamental quality conditioned through various forms, like water in differently-shaped jugs.
2. In turn, ‘gnosis’ in its purest state is outside of those paradigms, and does not have any relation to them, much like water does not have any relation to its container.
3. That the Chaos Magician’s apprehension of the structure of paradigms is true – i.e., they are contained as subsets of a greater whole.
These assumptions bring up some problems for us. The first and second assumptions, for instance, suggest that the experience of ‘gnosis’ can be extracted from its cultural and cosmological framework without altering it in any way. Is this really the case? But we’ll come back to this, because it’s the third principle which is really the kicker.
Aside from the unbridled egotism (which, let’s face it, isn’t exactly rare in magic) of the suggestion that the Chaos magician can apprehend a purer condition of gnosis wherein all subsystems can be contained and inter-related, at its very heart lies a paradox which raises serious questions. “Nothing is true, everything is permitted†is the watchword of Carroll, but in fact, there aresome things that are true:
1. Every belief system operates in particular ways, comprehensible to the outside observer.
2. It is possible to switch between belief systems, and thereby obtain the same results as anyone who invests belief in that system.
3. ‘Belief’ can be invested at the whim of the magician, and used as a tool.
So, actually, ‘nothing is true, except these things, which are true; but everything’s still permitted, so don’t worry.’. But there is a profound difference between believing in something and choosing to believe in something for a particular purpose; in fact, the latter is not really believing in something at all but choosing to suspend disbelief, which is nowhere near the same thing.
That’s not to mention that there is an underlying assumption that the Chaos magician is free from internal conditioning and deep-seated prejudices about the way the world around him works, an assumption which cannot easily be demonstrated.
Systems & Context
I am told that it is a great advance of Chaos Magick to suggest that magical results may be obtained from a system that may not be objectively true. Of course, it isn’t – Crowley states inLiber O vel Manus et Sagittae:
In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.
It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them.
But perhaps the innovation unique to Chaos magick is the belief that cultural entities and ideas can be picked from another system and slotted into another context, because of the meta-belief outlined above. Now, aside from smacking of cultural imperialism, this presents us with a serious problem: ideas cannot be divorced from their cultural or cosmological context, as they exist within a continuum wherein all parts depend on each other to create a cohesive whole.
Perhaps this simply represents a continuation of the filing-cabinet Qabalah adopted by Fortune and many 20th Century magicians, but while that draws equivalences and similarities, this rests on a principle of identification which is not supportable.
The entire point of a system is that it is a whole - that it has inbuilt structures for dealing with the number of possibilities that can arise in human consciousness. Removing a component from these structures is rather like removing the keystone from a bridge: it is necessary to have the rest of the damned bridge in order to cross the river.
Further, gnosis is contextual. Gnosis implies knowledge, and knowledge only has meaning in a particular context: without that context, any realisation is meaningless, because meaning depends on its relation to other mental data.
Scientism
Carroll’s Chaos Magick is infected and riddled with Scientism: from ‘paradigm shifts’ to magical equations, it’s all over the place. A scientific approach to magic! Yes! Wow! Wonderful!
Except, of course, it isn’t.
Science and magic are two conflicting theories of reality, and there are serious problems when one attempts to bring them together. One of the fundamental principles of science is causation: causation is observable, that each effect has its cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause (quantum exceptions apply [and here’s the rub] only on the quantum level). Magical thinking does not accept this: while some causes may be visible, there is also another mode of causation, which is ‘occult’ (i.e. hidden) and that the effect of that cause can be greater than the energies expended in causation (a matchstick figure can cause someone to burn to death in Spain).
Once that principle of causation is out of the window, there are immediately serious problems presented to the ‘scientific magician’. While the method of science (observation and experiment) may be applied to magic, this does not make it scientific.
(Sidenote: I suspect those who propose a quantum theory of magic are doomed to the same ridiculous ends as the 19th century occultists who babbled on about the luminiferous ether. Magicians rarely look good when talking about science.)
A lot of Carroll’s theory relies on the concept that ‘gnosis’ can be quantified. Can it? Can I say I have ‘more’ or ‘less’ gnosis at any particular time. Can the gnosis I derive from an LBRP be related mathematically to the gnosis I derive from an evocation of Sandalphon? If not, then it can’t fit into a scientific schema.
The term ‘paradigm shifting’ is derived from Kuhn’s concept of scientific paradigm shifts, where beliefs and their attendant structures shift because of new scientific data. The Chaos Magic use of the term over looks two crucial problems with the use of the term:
1. Kuhn suggests that once a belief has been shifted, it cannot be shifted back: it is not adopted at whim.
2. There is a great deal of attendant intellectual and mental trauma to paradigm shifts, and if there isn’t then the belief has not been adopted in any real sense at all.
These both present real, obvious problems for Chaos Magic.
Sublimity &Utilitarianism
This last section is more an aesthetic objection to Chaos Magic than a rational, logical one. Essentially, my complaint is that the structure proposed by Carroll and many others leaves no room for the experience of the sublime.
This is based on the assumption that material and tangible results in particular aspects of material life (i.e., more money, more sex appeal) is more desirable than intangible appreciation of the beautiful or the sublime. This results in a mediocre and utilitarian philosophy wherein wanking over a sigil represents the metaphysical heights of human existence.
What this fails to recognise is that there are fields of human existence which do not have material worth, but are of profound value to the human being: the human feeling evoked in art, music and literature, or the ecstasy of the devotee at the shrine of a deity are ends in themselves, not utilised for any particular material end. Since Chaos magic is predicated on a system where all things must have material utility, it is inherently unable to recognise this.
Reproduced below: anon
This series of notes might, at some point, turn into an essay, tentatively titled ‘Why chaos magic is a load of balls’, or possibly something less inflammatory. I’ve said to a couple of people over the last few months that I would get all this down on paper, so here goes some notes.
I’m going to think about Chaos magic primarily from the works of Peter Carroll, since that’s the point from which most Chaos magicians orient themselves.
Paradigms, Belief, Meta-Belief
Chaos Magick as expressed by Carroll seems to consist of the fundamental principle that magical, spiritual or religious beliefs are separated into self-consistent systems of cosmological belief (‘paradigms’, adopted from Kuhn) , and ‘gnosis’ (a state of magical awareness) is conditioned into particular forms by those systems of belief.
This automatically sets up a number of assumptions
1. That ‘gnosis’ is a fundamental quality conditioned through various forms, like water in differently-shaped jugs.
2. In turn, ‘gnosis’ in its purest state is outside of those paradigms, and does not have any relation to them, much like water does not have any relation to its container.
3. That the Chaos Magician’s apprehension of the structure of paradigms is true – i.e., they are contained as subsets of a greater whole.
These assumptions bring up some problems for us. The first and second assumptions, for instance, suggest that the experience of ‘gnosis’ can be extracted from its cultural and cosmological framework without altering it in any way. Is this really the case? But we’ll come back to this, because it’s the third principle which is really the kicker.
Aside from the unbridled egotism (which, let’s face it, isn’t exactly rare in magic) of the suggestion that the Chaos magician can apprehend a purer condition of gnosis wherein all subsystems can be contained and inter-related, at its very heart lies a paradox which raises serious questions. “Nothing is true, everything is permitted†is the watchword of Carroll, but in fact, there aresome things that are true:
1. Every belief system operates in particular ways, comprehensible to the outside observer.
2. It is possible to switch between belief systems, and thereby obtain the same results as anyone who invests belief in that system.
3. ‘Belief’ can be invested at the whim of the magician, and used as a tool.
So, actually, ‘nothing is true, except these things, which are true; but everything’s still permitted, so don’t worry.’. But there is a profound difference between believing in something and choosing to believe in something for a particular purpose; in fact, the latter is not really believing in something at all but choosing to suspend disbelief, which is nowhere near the same thing.
That’s not to mention that there is an underlying assumption that the Chaos magician is free from internal conditioning and deep-seated prejudices about the way the world around him works, an assumption which cannot easily be demonstrated.
Systems & Context
I am told that it is a great advance of Chaos Magick to suggest that magical results may be obtained from a system that may not be objectively true. Of course, it isn’t – Crowley states inLiber O vel Manus et Sagittae:
In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.
It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them.
But perhaps the innovation unique to Chaos magick is the belief that cultural entities and ideas can be picked from another system and slotted into another context, because of the meta-belief outlined above. Now, aside from smacking of cultural imperialism, this presents us with a serious problem: ideas cannot be divorced from their cultural or cosmological context, as they exist within a continuum wherein all parts depend on each other to create a cohesive whole.
Perhaps this simply represents a continuation of the filing-cabinet Qabalah adopted by Fortune and many 20th Century magicians, but while that draws equivalences and similarities, this rests on a principle of identification which is not supportable.
The entire point of a system is that it is a whole - that it has inbuilt structures for dealing with the number of possibilities that can arise in human consciousness. Removing a component from these structures is rather like removing the keystone from a bridge: it is necessary to have the rest of the damned bridge in order to cross the river.
Further, gnosis is contextual. Gnosis implies knowledge, and knowledge only has meaning in a particular context: without that context, any realisation is meaningless, because meaning depends on its relation to other mental data.
Scientism
Carroll’s Chaos Magick is infected and riddled with Scientism: from ‘paradigm shifts’ to magical equations, it’s all over the place. A scientific approach to magic! Yes! Wow! Wonderful!
Except, of course, it isn’t.
Science and magic are two conflicting theories of reality, and there are serious problems when one attempts to bring them together. One of the fundamental principles of science is causation: causation is observable, that each effect has its cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause (quantum exceptions apply [and here’s the rub] only on the quantum level). Magical thinking does not accept this: while some causes may be visible, there is also another mode of causation, which is ‘occult’ (i.e. hidden) and that the effect of that cause can be greater than the energies expended in causation (a matchstick figure can cause someone to burn to death in Spain).
Once that principle of causation is out of the window, there are immediately serious problems presented to the ‘scientific magician’. While the method of science (observation and experiment) may be applied to magic, this does not make it scientific.
(Sidenote: I suspect those who propose a quantum theory of magic are doomed to the same ridiculous ends as the 19th century occultists who babbled on about the luminiferous ether. Magicians rarely look good when talking about science.)
A lot of Carroll’s theory relies on the concept that ‘gnosis’ can be quantified. Can it? Can I say I have ‘more’ or ‘less’ gnosis at any particular time. Can the gnosis I derive from an LBRP be related mathematically to the gnosis I derive from an evocation of Sandalphon? If not, then it can’t fit into a scientific schema.
The term ‘paradigm shifting’ is derived from Kuhn’s concept of scientific paradigm shifts, where beliefs and their attendant structures shift because of new scientific data. The Chaos Magic use of the term over looks two crucial problems with the use of the term:
1. Kuhn suggests that once a belief has been shifted, it cannot be shifted back: it is not adopted at whim.
2. There is a great deal of attendant intellectual and mental trauma to paradigm shifts, and if there isn’t then the belief has not been adopted in any real sense at all.
These both present real, obvious problems for Chaos Magic.
Sublimity &Utilitarianism
This last section is more an aesthetic objection to Chaos Magic than a rational, logical one. Essentially, my complaint is that the structure proposed by Carroll and many others leaves no room for the experience of the sublime.
This is based on the assumption that material and tangible results in particular aspects of material life (i.e., more money, more sex appeal) is more desirable than intangible appreciation of the beautiful or the sublime. This results in a mediocre and utilitarian philosophy wherein wanking over a sigil represents the metaphysical heights of human existence.
What this fails to recognise is that there are fields of human existence which do not have material worth, but are of profound value to the human being: the human feeling evoked in art, music and literature, or the ecstasy of the devotee at the shrine of a deity are ends in themselves, not utilised for any particular material end. Since Chaos magic is predicated on a system where all things must have material utility, it is inherently unable to recognise this.