Previously, I have spoken of a particular instance of “Confusing the Planes.” The description of what this refers to was necessarily brief. I feel this concept needs further explanation, as much esoteric and magickal writing one finds on the internet tends to lack a general structural understanding. This leads to multiple conflations and confusions that end up breeding serious problems.

First, let me make it clear what these “Planes” are that I think people tend to confuse. Western Hermeticism generally recognizes gradations of “existence,” which in earlier times were taken as literal divisions in the Cosmos. I tend to take slightly different tack, preferring to see the Cosmos per se as One, but with aspects that can only be seen from particular states of consciousness. We have examples of this in more mundane contexts. For instance, an infant looking at these words would not see “words,” would not be “reading” in the sense of understanding. “Reading” takes place in a different “Plane” from the immediately apprehended one available to one who has not been “initiated” into verbal language.

My basic model, or starting framework, is the Four Worlds of the Qabalah. The strange mangling of Lurianic theory that Hermetic Qabalah presents gives us, in spite of its raw cultural appropriation, a useful system of catagorizing existence. We have first, the Tree of Life, with its Sephiroth and Paths. These are nested in Four “Worlds” or gradations of being. The direction “downward” is from the undifferentiated “All” to the Plane of Gross Manifestation, or the Material World.

The first “World” (moving down) is Atziluth, the realm of Divine Emanation. It’s the basic ground of being, from which everything else emerges. There is little which can be said about Atziluth that can be considered accurate, since “it” properly speaking, is not an object. You will generally find this World attributed to Kether, the Crown and the first Sephirah on the Tree. However, it really should be understood as a series from the Veils of Negative Existence to that Sphere. Kether crystalizes the Divine Emptiness into form, which is none other than an aggregate of that Emptiness.

Less confusing is the World of Briah, the realm of Creation. Here we encounter the differentiation from One into Many. This Many is not manifest in material form as yet, but instead exists in potentia. It has been called the realm of story, from whence arise the basic patterns that will be filled in by the proceeding levels. One could also call it the Home of the True Gods, where the living essence of the diverse Dieties dwells.

Yetzirah corresponds to what has been called the “Astral Plane” or the “Treasurehouse of Images.” It’s where dreams happen, as well as providing the etheric skeleton for the manifest Universe. Here we also find Godforms, as opposed to Gods. This is where they put on their makeup to dance with Mortals.

Assiah is where it all comes together in manifestation. It’s the material plane, where things are solid and bound by strict chains of causality. Here are the things you can measure, run into, eat, have sex with, and kill. We live here, die here, and return to the basics components of this world when our flesh begins to rot.

In this schema, there are also various “Souls” or parts of a human being that are most “at home” with these various modes. The Guph (Physical Body) lives in Assiah, the Nephesh (Astral) in Yetzirah, The Ruach (Mental) and part of the Neschamah (Low Causal) in Briah, and the Higher Neschamah (Higher Causal) in Atziluth. There are finer divisions that will become important later. What matters right now is that there are four divisions, each of which is most clearly apprehended from the perspective of a particular function in the human psyche.

The basic method going forward will be to map other models onto this framework, and then give examples of different ways in which people mix up or view a particular circumstance or arena of activity from a perspective which is inappropriate. Hence “Confusing the Planes.”

Donald Michael Kraig’s Modern Magick has served as an introduction to Hermeticism for thousands of aspirants. For many, it is the first book they will buy. While there is much to be learned from this book there are one or two bits that will likely do more harm than good if utilized.

The main “problem” technique in the book is called “I.O.B.” or “Identify, Objectify, Banish.” It’s a fairly straightforward concept. The practitioner makes an image of a personality trait they want to get rid of, then proceeds to perform a kind of “exorcism.” Not a bad idea, all things being equal.

Until you consider the psychological mechanism known as projection.. What the practitioner has effectively done is split off a part of their psyche, which probably has a history of its own and numerous reasons for having arisen in the first place, and sent it off into the world. They will then go on with their lives, blissfully assuming that their unwanted quirks are safely “banished.”

You cannot “banish” a personality trait. As I hinted at before, each aspect of our personality is deeply rooted in our life history. Persistent patterns or profound shocks to our psyche (for good or ill) shape the complex of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings we call “ourselves.” An unwanted behaviour can be (but isn’t always) a way of compensating for something we don’t want to look at. It has a heart which beats with a rhythm that is harsh to our ears.

I.O.B. may very well remove superficial personality traits. But the buried psychic material behind those behaviors or feelings will remain. And, since we’ve sent them away, they will start to show up in our interactions with others. We will project our shadow material onto our friends, neighbors, and random strangers who, for some inexplicable reason, now annoy us.

A much more effective way to work with these little “quirks” in a similar vein would be to create the telesmatic image as suggested, then merge with it. Identify with it as yourself, as your own (which it is.) Then, search for the burning heart of the beast you’ve become. Ask “why do I do this?” and see what kind of response you get. Sit with whatever it is, then, call down Light into your heart center and ask it to heal the wound.

This is a great deal “scarier” than I.O.B. It’s advantage is that, rather than allowing the aspiring Magus to think they’ve cast out their “demons,” it actually engages with inner drives an impulses and re-owns them.

We find ourselves on an island, the self we have created over the course of our lives. Around us is the boiling sea from which that self has emerged. In it are fragments we left behind, many we’d rather forget. But they are sharp, and if we send them back into the sea, they will one day return with a more jagged edge.

It is better to bring them ashore, and use the fire of our spirit to crush them into diamonds that will add to our clarity, rather than disown them and pretend they are demons that can be banished with little more than a magick word.

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.