I ran across this intriguing post on John Crow’s Treasure House of Pearls.

It starts with (wait for it) a couple of Crowley quotes concerning the protection of the “unfit” and how it “degrades” society. Mr. Crow then goes into a short essay which seems oddly Collectivist for the tribe of Fundamentalist Crowlians he has allied himself with.

The thing that caught my eye in what is mostly a “look at my bad ass being true to Crowley” post was the following:

Unlike in Christianity where simply being alive makes you one of God’s children, Thelemic values look at what the life is doing to judge whether it has meaning or not.

Meaning eh? Odd perspective from which to judge a life absent some normative standard of the type Crow and his ilk criticize on a regular basis. One would think that if the individual were key, that individual’s quality of life would be paramount, not some arbitrary “meaning.”

Perhaps this will make more sense if we read on:

Is the person doing their will? Are they doing the will of another person or group? These activities give meaning to life. However, if the person is not doing their own or the will of another, or worse, incapable, then that life has little meaning.

Now, there are many theories as to the “meaning of life.” If this is Mr. Crow’s submission to what is arguably the most hotly debated topic in the history of philosophy, I should find myself quite sad.

He seems to be saying that the meaning or purpose of life is to do someone’s will. Anyone’s, apparently, since I am at a loss to think of another possible source of volition outside the triad of Self, Other, Group. How this is “Thelemic” also escapes me. If I remember correctly the line is “Do What Thou Wilt” not “Do What Either You, Someone Else, or a Group You Belong to Wills.” Perhaps it would read differently in Greek?

Besides, there’s always the chance that someone could do the will of someone else who is “inferior” or a group of relative “inferiors.” The statement as to the origin of a life’s meaning above gives no qualifiers, so if one was intended the omission is huge.

Mr. Crow continues:

I am hardly a proponent of killing people, even those born weak, deformed or underdeveloped. However, I do not think it is society’s job to support them. If a family has a retarded child that will never get past the intelligence of an 8-year old, I have absolutely no objection against that family caring for and supporting that child. If that is their will, so be it. However, it is not the responsibility of society to care for that person.

This introduces an entirely new question: what is society’s “job” or responsibility to the individual? One would think some sort of answer would be forthcoming. We would expect it to be something in the vein of aiding the individual to do someone’s (anyone’s) will. Yet:

And this is where the hard realities of nature emerge and the conflicts arise. “In the good old days there was some sort of natural selection; brains and stamina were necessary to survival. The race, as such consequently improved.” This is the essential point and highlights how Thelemic and Judeo-Christian (and Humanistic) values clash.

Apart from the fact that this in no way follows from or expands upon the point attempted in the first part of the paragraph, it introduces another set of debatable propositions to tackle. Throwing questionable interpretations of Darwin into the mix does absolutely nothing in terms of answering the questions raised, or even clarifying them so they can be answered in a cogent fashion.

What seems to emerge from the entire mess is the idea that society will be “improved” by people who are able to do their will, or someone else’s, or that of a group they belong to. Maybe one they don’t belong to as well. In their spare time. Therefore, we as a society have a responsibility to “cull the herd” in order to remove people who… can’t do anything. Consequently, “the race will be improved.”

Among the hundred or so unanswered questions that arise from this, including the apparent advocacy of Enlightenment notions of “progress” (”the race was consequently improved ect.) the values implicit in this post seem to be skewed toward a set of perceived collective interests. Toward “humanity” the “race” or “society” and how it can be “improved.”

As I said earlier, it would seem that, when judging a person’s life, it would make more sense to judge based on quality rather than meaning. “Meaning” in this instance either requires some collective agreement, or is totally subjective. Even if there is such a thing as an objective, absolute meaning (an argument beyond the scope of this post) such would have to be agreed upon in order for a society to take it as an operating principle.

“Quality” on the other hand, has a component which can be assessed with some degree of clarity. Does a person seem to be able to enjoy their life? Are they relatively self-sufficient? Is there a niche they can fill and be happy and productive? These kinds of subjective and intersubjective assessments seem geared more toward the individual than grandiose statements about the “race.”

Further, if we’re going to discuss what role society has in the matter, why not start with something that society has the power to do? For instance, developmental disorders tend to have some form of industrial pollution at their root. This means that regulation of said industries (corporations are not people, no matter what the courts say, and thus have no rights) could lessen the number of people with developmental problems and other health issues. It also means that the victims of said pollution would be entitled to compensation, possibly for life. So, we avoid both caring for life simply because it exists and allowing people to die because they have diseases caused by modern production.

Of course, there are whole groups devoted to producing propaganda with as little content as Mr. Crow’s post “proving” that such regulation is unjust. It all depends on who you wish to listen to, and why.

What we have in Mr. Crow’s post is a series of rhetorical bon-bons, intended to be consumed by people who already buy into his ideology, and spat out by those he thinks will be offended by them. In terms of how Thelema looks at life and its value, we have nothing.

The modern Magus faces a significant number of challenges to the full development of their Soul. The entire current of modern life runs against the idea of transcendence. On top of that, we live in a psychic environment filled almost wall to wall with media which not only distract, but in the case of the audio-visual media, can also mimic the superficial brain states that Theurgic practice relies on.

Our biggest problem is that our modern and postmodern society has been “flattened,” to borrow the terminology of Ken Wilbur. That is, we are told, most times without realizing it, to consider only the surface of our existence. To think of the things that we can play with, get hurt by, or drive, for example, as the only “real” things.

It does not good to simply deny this epistemological chauvinism. Since we were born in this society, with these concepts and this bias, denying on the cognitive level and leaving it there leaves the unconscious side untouched. In fact, it can tend to exacerbate the problem. It uses the master’s tools to tear his house down.

It may be no accident that we have more armchair occultists than actual practitioners. People raised to think of the Ego as the only valid point of reference will tend to rely on it even when exploring notions of realities beyond. This is the real impact of modernity on the occult: the reduction of phenomena to what can be rationally justified according to scientific or pseudo-scientific models.

Those interested in actually developing their Soul must take a leap into territory that is poorly mapped and not taken seriously by the society around them. This will seem to many of their fellows as an “escape from reality.”

After all, we have many such trapdoors to fall into. Television provides a totalizing picture of reality that nearly everyone accepts at face value. While they may recognize fiction as fiction, it is rare to view the “news” in the same terms.

The nature of audio-visual media: the montage, the sophisticated use of sound and color, all produce a light trance state in the viewer. This trance is all that is needed to imprint the basic symbol set into the average modern psyche. By the time a person is eighteen, they are effectively a robot programmed to respond to certain signals in a positive or negative way.

Worse, the light trance of media also encourages emotional identification. People begin to experience the actual neurological responses of the characters they are viewing, the stories they see on the news.

We can also begin to experience the epiphenomenae of transcendent states when engrossed in a truly inspiring story. Enough exposure to what amounts to spiritual pornography and the modern potential Magus can decide that they need not do any real work. They don’t have to detach from the main interests of the society around them, because they have already “been there.” They just need to consume the right things, and they are “spiritual.”

Sorry to say, I think limiting exposure to the distractions of the Panopticon is necessary for real development of the Soul. Not total abandonment, but a downplaying of the centrality. This will likely help one awaken from the Trance that keeps them from the Inner Temple.

Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann, who in 1943 accidentally discovered the hallucinogenic effects of Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), has died at the age of 102, Reuters reports.

French’s “Law”: As an internet discussion exhausts the ability of participants to form a cogent argument, the probability that a Godwin-class “law” will be coined approaches one.

When I say “Godwin-class ‘Law’” I am referring to aphorisms taking their inspiration from of Godwin’s “Law.” This “Law” states that (if you haven’t encountered it -lucky fuck-) “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” The idea was to reduce inflammatory comparisons, but over time it people began to assume that any comparison to Hitler, even if it was appropriate, made a person’s argument weak or invalid. It’s become a paradigm of its own, with people exchanging the terms to suit what ever analogy annoys them the most.

Such “Laws” actually say nothing, and only serve to make the individual employing them appear intelligent to their peers, who probably share their perspective. We have here not an example of wit, but of one of the most onerous aspects of internet discourse. I call this the “pre-established circle jerk.” The internet is filled with little enclaves of intellectual incest, in which cadres of “friends” get together to re-enforce the narratives and memes they brought with them. When someone from with an perspective outside the view enters such a group, they are automatically labeled with whatever snarl word or phrase is used to designate those who don’t belong. They will generally either engage in futile attempts to cut through the thicket of strawmen erected in their path in order to get their real point across, leave, or gradually be bullied into accepting the groups perspective.

What we have here is the marriage of over-active Third Circuits with misdirected Second Circuits. Since this is a text based medium, people tend to forget that they’re talking to humans that might actually have feelings. With linear mentation placed into high gear with too much caffeine and repetitive action, the wires get crossed and the affluent individual with no real survival concerns transfers their territorial instinct to the defense of their mental boundaries. “Our Truth has been blasphemed,” the cry sounds. “Once more into the breech, dear friends, and we’ll plug up their firewalls with our biting second hand wit!”

In the Pagan community, there are numerous examples of this. The movement is broad enough, and some areas so highly specialized, that one can be accepted as wise in one clique and branded as bereft of merit in another. If one is not careful, on might even get saddled with the most dreaded title, the blackest curse any internet witch can cast upon another, the perspective that dare not speak its name.
They might be deemed “fluffy.”

Over time, the usage of this label has evolved. In the dim past (roughly four years ago) it tended to show up as a synonym for “New Age.” It connoted someone who was a bit too pollyannish, timid about working with “dark” deities, or afraid to use magick in a way that wasn’t quite “nice.” Lately, however, it seems to have taken an interesting new direction. Now, it seems that “willful ignorance” is the stigmata of the fluffy. “Ignorance,” of course, being defined according to the standards of those same incestuous bastions of online “wisdom” mentioned above.

The tone and content of such condemnations demonstrate quite clearly the over-stimulated Third Circuit activating the dormant territorial Second Circuit. An entire website devoted to “Fighting the Fluff,” Wicca For the Rest of Us, contains startling examples of this. It is as if someone had too much coffee and went to town with Dreamweaver in order to shun entire segments of the community based not on skill or aspiration, but the degree to which the “fluffy” holds views which diverge from the website’s author.

What I find interesting about this is that it bases judgment of a person in a spiritual context on their relationship to the rational content of their mind. While this may be important, I think the internet’s hyper-discursive nature distorts its overall significance. A person may be able to perform and invocation that curls your hair and brings through a divine presence without any doubt that you are witnessing something truly transcendent, and still hold firmly, even dogmatically, to the most ridiculous aspects of say, the Burning Times narrative. Who would you rather have in Circle or Lodge, a well educated incompetent, or an “ignorant” person with some real magickal chops? Ideally, of course, one could find in depth, current knowledge and occult skill in the same person, but I’d be going with the “fluffy” who can run energy over the brain that can barely do an LBRP.

The Western Mystery Tradition tells us we have five “souls.” The mortal ego, the part that assimilates discursive information and rearranges it into patterns, inhabits the outskirts of what is called the Ruach. On the Tree of Life, it’s called “Hod.” It’s one of Ten. This means that focusing exclusively on the facility and content of the rational, discursive mind, is downplaying or ignoring all but one tenth of a persons being, one fifth of a fifth of their souls. Put this way, it seems rather myopic.

The counter argument is that “fluffies” make us “look bad” in the eyes of the mainstream. As if historical “accuracy” (a debatable concept to begin with) would make people who view us as arrested adolescents LARPing any less derisive. No, they would likely just see us as bigger dorks. Fundamentalist Christians will never respect us, because it would mean giving up their own psychic “turf.” The more open minded Christians generally treat other religions with respect regardless of how “silly” some members seem. So, who are we trying to impress here?

I would submit that this preoccupation with how mainstream society views us is far more harmful to the community and to occultists in general than any historical inaccuracy. It was this that lead to the Llewellen book boom. Concern over mainstream acceptance caused Pagans of a few years back to tacitly condone the rhetoric of the Satanic Panic of the late Eighties. We were so worried about not being associated with a fiction created by Charismatic lunatics that we played into the criminalization of a religious perspective, something which should never be allowed in a secular Democracy under any circumstances.

We will probably always seem a little strange and silly to most of the society we find ourselves in. Pagans at the very least profess belief in or experience with realities beyond the range of the five gross senses. Some even act on such beliefs. This makes us weird. Anyone who takes time to do something other than acquire pieces of plastic imbued with programmed obsolescence is weird in our society. That’s simply the reality we live with. No matter how much we try to look like scholars and gentlefolk, to the ordinary robot on the street, we’re freaks. Deal with it.

The final thing I would point out is the depressing degree to which this drive to purge us of fluffies resembles the worst aspects of our current social situation. While the discussions I’ve seen stops far short of suggesting actual physical violence, the language and attitude looks a great deal like the eliminationism that has become ingrained in our culture over the past decade. It’s the same miswiring, playing out differently.

With the internet as our main communication tool, we forget that we have bodies. That we are more than a brain hooked up to fingers tapping out words. Paganism, however, stresses the sacredness of the flesh, the holiness that lies in “irrational” experience. While being true to history is important, it is equally important to not commit the same errors as the society around us in trying to achieve this.

Failing this, we will be little more than another set of lofty notions, adding to the sea of noise emitting from chattering sacks of meat and wires that have forgotten they are more than the words spilling out across the liquid display.

Pagans face an interesting quandary. One of the main aspects of the Path that we find attractive, even key, is the thing which makes the “mainstream” shun, mock, and otherwise revile it. Actually, there are several items which that statement could apply to, but I’m speaking specifically about the perceived “looseness” or individual nature of the various strands of religious experience that fall under the Pagan umbrella.

Our society inherited a set of assumptions about what a religion “is” from the various Judeo-Christian traditions. A religion must have strict rules. There must be a sharp line between what is deemed holy and profane. Beliefs must revolve around the words or life of particular individuals. These are just a few of the elements of what most people in our society view as essential to a “real” religion.

From this perspective, Paganism looks a bit silly. It looks, in fact, like a kind of spiritual anarchy in which the only standard is the set of personal prejudices the practitioner approaches the Path with in the first place.

I won’t deny that there is some truth to this. It only takes a few minutes in a chat room or an e-list to see the “free for all” attitude taken to an extreme. People often come to Paganism from extremely dogmatic forms of Christianity, and any suggestion that there might be something which is critical for defining what is or is not “Pagan” tends to sound a lot like what they’re trying to get away from.

The primary assumptions of both perspectives need to be reassessed. “Religion” need not look like the quasi-historical, book based religions we are used to, with clearly defined rules and concrete moral proscriptions. A general guideline or set of ethical behaviors does not have to degrade into dogma.

A big part of the problem is that “Paganism” is an umbrella term for a number of belief systems that have, in some cases, little to do with one another. Many of them do not preclude adherence to other systems. To a certain degree, the word “Pagan” has little meaning without a qualifier.

What amuses me about this is that it puts the term in almost exactly the same boat as the word “Christian.” While the common source material that the various Christian traditions draw from does create a certain specific language and one or two main things that few actually agree on, the various denominations diverge at least slightly in most cases, in others quite widely. There are, for instance, vast differences between a Quaker and a Southern Baptist. About the only thing they have in common is that they read from the same book.

Modern Paganism simply has more books, and more importantly, many Gods. While two Pagans might not have the same ideas about religion, if two devotees of Hecate are actually contacting and dealing with Hecate, their experience will be quite similar. It will be different the way two people’s experience of another person would be, rather than the way a Catholic’s experience of Mary is different from a Fundamentalist.

The key to making Paganism comprehensible as something other than another New Age trend, it seems to me, is emphasizing it’s polytheistic nature. Polytheism, by its very dynamic, includes many different ethical experiences and approaches.

From this reverence for many deities, we can start to imagine a more holistic, less dualistic ontology. The dynamic becomes less about the difference between the “Sacred” and the “Profane” but between the Part and the Whole.

This may not in itself make Paganism acceptable to those who see religion as a question of following God given rules and cannot see it any other way. But for the truly narrow minded, nothing will.

Plenty of books have beaten up on the Bush administration’s military and diplomatic strategies. But Fred Kaplan’s Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power may be the most broad-based assault yet. In it, Kaplan hammers on everything from the White House’s faith in military technological superiority to its holier-than-thou approach to negotiating (or not). Kaplan, who writes Slate’s “War Stories” column, also explores the roots of many of these beliefs. And that’s where we start this Q&A — this first of many, I hope, with leading authors on national security.

Evidence of pagan rituals involving swans and other birds in the Cornish countryside in the 17th century has been uncovered by archaeologists.

Since 2003, 35 pits at the site in a valley near Truro have been excavated containing swan pelts, dead magpies, unhatched eggs, quartz pebbles, human hair, fingernails and part of an iron cauldron.

Anyone familiar with the Catholic Mass will notice similarities. The Gnostic symbolism, however, leans more toward taboo than tradition.

It’s interesting to see the Gnostic Mass reported on as part of a “survey of local churches” type of series. I do get the feeling that the Mass in question was “barbaric,” with the priestess remaining clothed throughout. The reporter doesn’t mention a naked priestess, and the description of the space makes it sound as if it is partially outdoors.

But does the challenge really make a statement about the existence of the paranormal and/or psi abilities? According to paranormal investigator Loyd Auerbach (who, like Randi, is a member of the magic fraternity):

Now, I do not “believe in” psychic phenomena in any uncritical sense. Some things make me wonder, though. What bothers me about this is that it’s basically rigged to fail. The Challenge effectively asks a person to produce phenomena according to what people who have a cartoonish idea of such things have constructed before the fact. So, you can’t win, either in terms of the number of tests you’d actually have to run, or beating a strawman created by someone who already thinks you’re nuts.

The death has been announced of Alan Miller (aka Dr Christopher Hyatt), author and publisher of Thelemic works, on 9 February at his home in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Hyatt was part of a very specific generation of esoteric authors. Like Robert Anton Wilson, he stressed liberation from our fixed ideas, and was fiercely anti-dogmatic. The last book of his that I read was To Lie is Human, Not Getting Caught is Divine which is basically a series of questions to ask about how much you betray yourself. It’s strange, angry, and the kind of magickal book that doesn’t center around reifying a symbol set so that you can be a pre-fab “adept.”

His voice will be missed.