Follow-up to my post about my disillusionment with the Occult Scene
I’ve been watching with some interest just how much traffic my post about my disillusionment with the occult scene has generated. It even got linked by Chas Clifton, a pagan blogger and academic. He summarized that post as, ” Aleister Crowley’s legacy still poses problems for occultists — especially when they take Internet “life” as equivalent to a “scene.”
Unfortunately that summary misses the point of that post entirely. I can understand, however, why he might think this was an issue with Crowley’s legacy (such as it is) given my previous posts about Crowley on this blog. However Crowley is just a symptom of the problem, albeit to my mind, one of the originating symptoms. My original issue with Crowley essentially boils down to this: If after seventy years since his death, Crowley still represents the pinnacle of occultism, then occultism as a discipline hasn’t advanced at all, which then brings up the question as to why any of us even bother practicing magic at all, if all we’re trying to do is emulate him. Mind you, I don’t believe all of us are trying to emulate him, but my original issue with Crowley was spurred on by seeing this person talked about so much, with so very little attention seemingly given to other occult authors or other original perspectives that weren’t necessarily overtly influenced by him, to the point that some of these occult authors are only, in recent times, being rediscovered (Franz Bardon particularly comes to mind, though I can think of a number of others).
But after re-reading some of Crowley’s work, I came to realize that my issue with Crowley was just a symptom of a deeper problem. I could see that Crowley had some valid points to make, even if the end I felt that while what he wrote could be insightful, I still don’t believe its as influential as some people would argue. Before I get into any arguments with people who disagree, I’ll just accept that yes he obviously has a lot of influence on you and your practice of magic. However, in re-reading his work I still don’t find it very illuminating or graceful or any of the other things you think about it (so let’s agree to disagree about that).
But this brings me to the problem I now see Crowley as a symptom of. Crowley’s image, his notoriety is to me symbolic of the problem I perceive with the occult scene. I honestly wonder if people would find his work as influential if he didn’t also have that bad boy image that he has. In other words, I think that the image has overtaken the content. And given that there are no other occult authors that really have that kind of notoriety, a further question I find myself asking is, “If another occult author had that kind of notoriety, would people read his works in the same way…would the image influence how the content was perceived?” Now someone might say, “Hey it’s not fair that you assume that Crowley’s image influences my reading of his content.” Yes it may not be fair, but it is a valid consideration to bear in mind. Does Crowley’s image overtake, overshadow, and consequently influence how his work is read and/or practiced? Is Crowley the best role model of a magician that we have? Should he be a role model for us? But it doesn’t end with Crowley. The problem here is how much is the occult scene invested in image opposed to content (and who decides what is image and what is content?)?
When I talk about the occult scene, I’m not just talking about Crowley and I’m certainly not just talking about the internet occult scene. The Zee list was an excellent example of what I considered to be part of this image problem I’ve talked about, because on the zee list what you really had occurring was a lot of chest beating and posturing over who was the uber occultist of them all. What didn’t occur was a lot of sharing of ideas or experiments. Some of that occurred, but most of the time you had flame wars erupting…and to a lesser degree this also occurred on other e-lists. I can’t say if it’s occurred in recent times, because I’m not on any of the e-lists I used to be on. I stayed off them when I realized that any experiments or work I was going to do would probably be best shared with only a select group of people.
So dear reader, at this point, you might ask, “So why are you feeling disillusioned?” And my response: “Is occultism as a culture about image or content or is there a good balance for both?” I think of Generation Hex, the anthology edited by Jason Louv as an example of what I’m asking about. Because on one hand it represents a snapshot in the lives of certain people and their pursuit and practice of magic, and on the other hand it also represents a method for marketing the practice of magic as something cool people can do. It’s a cultural text that offers us insight into why people decided magic was relevant to them as a practice and as way of connecting with other people, etc, but it’s a statement of how magic could (should?) be perceived.
And then too my disillusionment about occultism comes down to: “What does doing all of this stuff really do for me? How is this really changing my life?” I have no doubt magic has changed my life and changed it for the better, but in considering questions such as those, I also consider the role of occultism as a culture and as a practice in my life. Is the practice of magic just a practice that allows people to connect socially or culturally? Is the practice of magic an elaborate social schema for interaction with certain types of people? Or is there more? I can point to my own experiments and say yes there has been more than just a connection on social or cultural level. But when I look at occultism as a whole, as a culture, I’m asking, what are we practicing magic for? What is the purpose for practicing magic? How does this practice benefit us as individuals, as a cultural group, or humanity, or the Earth, or the universe? What is the significance, if anything…or is it just image in the end?
And to be clear I’m not commenting on the practices of others or your choice to be influenced by Crowley or whatever else as a way of dismissing it. To quote a tried and true maxim of chaos magic, “Whatever works for you” I’m really commenting on all of this for myself, as a way of looking at how I situate my practice of magic into my life, and into my interactions with the occult community and culture. I’m seeking answers to my questions, because those answers will really shape the direction my spiritual path goes into, as well as how and if I continue to take part in the occult community. Posting it here is the opportunity to articulate my feelings and concerns, to get some distance from them, to come back with a different perspective down the line. What answers I get, which could come from commentary that others offer, still are answers I have to find on my own. I suppose you could my disillusionment my spiritual mid life crisis. It’s not necessarily a dark night of the soul, but it certainly is something to me…and that’s just fine, because it means something is happening.
Well you know how I feel, but for detail, let me go on.
I think Crowley’s bad-boy image helped make him famous, but in turn though it popularized some of his work, it DID leave a mark on occultism. He became a role-model, even unconciously for many people, I think because in part he fit the stereotypes of our culture while being “cool” – but the stereotypes of the magician in Western culture are fundamentaly negative.
The next question is has magic progressed, and I’d say “not much” because magic didn’t need to progress – magic needed a back-to-basics approach to get beyond the various accredions. That was Chaos Magic.
However now magic is in a state of deconstruction, and it hasn’t RECONSTRUCTED yet – and what I call “post-chaoism” hasn’t really made much progress yet. Because though we’ve taken magic apart to “blueprint it” we really haven’t gone beyond the limits imposed by Western Culture itself.
This is ultimately why I’ve found the most fulfillment in more Eastern studies and cultural studies. It helps me see magic outside of the Western mindsets which are still too limited.
The future of magic is going to be when it gets beyond magic.
I confess, I still fail to understand your obsession with Crowley, especially as you repeatedly indicate you “really” take issue with are the people who aim to slavishly emulate Crowley’s Work, rather than pursue their own, and not a magician who’s been dead for more than sixty years.
Nonetheless, let’s look at Crowley’s “image”. I’m not sure which you’re referring to, the one where he was voted amongst Britain’s top 100 influential people, or the devilish way he was hounded by the press, or the way Wiccans tremble at his name, or modern Thelemites who twitch at his unhappy-making exploits? There are so many “images” one could look at.
No doubt though, the man was a savant. Poet, chess master, mountaineer, magician, prophet, author, bisexual, drug user and abuser – and more. Complex guy. None of these things either on their own or even collectively would seem odd to us today, but they sure as hell struck the early half of the twentieth century as outlandish, dangerously bizarre.
I’m reading a (dated but interesting) book by Richard Florida titled The Rise of the Creative Class. In it, he discusses the changing way we look at work and progress. In particular, he cites a few passages that may help shed some light on the bombastic characteristics that seem to be present amongst great innovators, such as Paracelsus, Crowley, or, for more contemporary examples take your pick of rock stars.
Florida cites Margaret Boden, who writes that creativity:
This is putting a positive spin on the situation, but one can easily see how a more Nietzschean mind, one with a “Will to Power”, might unconsciously interpret this sentiment in a more aggressive fashion.
Joel Mokyr, quoted in the same book, notes:
The same is of course true for approaches to magickal technology. Crowley grew up in a radically strict Christian sect, the results of his rebellion are hardly surprising in context.
Reading a few (wildly conflicting!) biographies might help with your discomfort?
I can respect that Crowley chose to pursue a lifestyle of his own choice in rebellion of how he was raised (been there, done that myself). I can even respect his works and admit that he makes some valid points, even if I don’t find them as brilliant as you or some others do.
The issue really boils down to the simple fact that Crowley as an image, as an icon, and as an occult role model of sorts tends to be what people in general know about the occult (for better or worse), and within the Western ceremonial and hermetic traditions, Crowley is usually the one author everyone knows. On the other hand, I can count on my fingers on ONE hand how many western ceremonialists I’ve met over my sixteen years of practice who know who William G. Gray is or have familiarity with his work. I can count on two hands the occultists I’ve met who know who Franz Bardon is. If you like, I can name other occult authors that most occultists don’t know about…not because their writing isn’t memorable, or because they don’t have good ideas. They just didn’t have the same resources or pr campaign that Crowley had (and even today via the OTO has) for himself. Honestly, I admire Franz Bardon who was able to escape from a Nazi Concentration camp more than Crowley, who never really had to deal with such difficulties.
Focusing on Crowley so much in this blog has been really illuminating for me. Some of our exchanges have been helpful in considering what it is that bothers me about Crowley. And it’s not Crowley the person, or his works, it’s the image of Crowley, which is symptomatic really of the issue I have with occultism in general. Crowley is an easy example to point to, because so much of that image isn’t even focused on Crowley as a magician, but instead is focused on his excesses. Crowley is a role model of rebellion…and in the proper context that could be healthy, but if that’s the only role model we as a subculture have, I can’t say it’s a healthy role model to have, without a balancing context. It’s fashionable in the occult subculture to rebel against something…I’ve seen that time and again over the last sixteen years. I just haven’t seen much else beyond that, and as a someone who wanted more than that from the occult subculture, I can’t say I ever really found it.
But as my good friend Vince says, we need to move beyond magic and increasingly I’m convinced that’s exactly what will need to occur to really get any leverage out of what magic has to offer (beyond good ol’ fashioned rebellion)
Once again who is focusing on his image so? Beyond yourself and a few twitchy Wiccans, I don’t see it.
If Gray, Bardon, Evola, and whomever else you may care to name have the potential to be influential: demonstrate it. It’s only by showing people how they’ve influenced you and how their work can benefit others that the word will get out there. Simply lamenting that few others care is not enough of a reason for most people to pick up the material and work with it. You have to be more explicit and prove it.
(FTR: I’m not disagreeing that they’ve written useful niche material, but frankly I’m really invested in bettering anyone’s name.)
I’m not surprised you don’t see it Psyche…and I frankly don’t have the time to continue trying to explain the issue to you. You’ve previously admitted you don’t understand why some people take issue with Crowley. I don’t think any words I offer are going to explain it any better than what’s already been offered as an explanation. If you don’t get it by now, you never will get it.
As for demonstrating the influence of the other writers…why do you think my books cite those authors? I’ve already demonstrated their influence amply in my written works.