All posts by Joseph Max.555

Chaos vs Eclectic Magick

By Joseph Max.555 | July 19, 1997 | Leave a comment

From: “Joseph Max.555″
Newsgroups: alt.magick.chaos
Subject: Re: Chaos vs Eclectic magic
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:00:40 -0700

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, garyb wrote:

<< What are the differences(if any) between Chaos magic and Eclectic magic? >>

I’ve read some books and articles by both Phil Hine and Peter Caroll and I like them very much. But besides the labels and institution what is the difference between their theories and say…Issac Bonewits book Real Magic, which I’m not sure is Yellow Magic(?) or Eclectic Magic? >>

Chaos Magic is eclectic, but eclectic is not necessarily Chaos Magic.

It’s more a matter of approach and attitude. Most of the _practices_ of a given chaote or group may of course be considered “eclectic”.

But Bonewits posits a particular set of _beliefs_, that are basic assumptions or axioms that are to be accepted as TRUE. There’s a whole list of them, I think, if I remember the book.

Chaos Magic posits no beliefs — at least none to be considered absolutely “true”. Nothing is true. You are therefore free to take anything you like and use it AS IF it were true. Everything is permitted. And the amazing thing is that even if you’re _faking it_ it still works!

A belief system, ANY belief system, even one cobbled together from bits and pieces, copied or original, if it’s _continuously_ subscribed to as being _absolutely true_ by the magican, it ceases to be Chaos Magic.

Chaos Magicians are magical agnostics. They don’t _know_ what might be absolutely true, and suspect that _nothing_ is — and they DON’T CARE.

This shows in the contrast between Pete and Phil. Pete’s obsession was empire building — he was fascinated by the old Magical Order gambit and wanted to do what Uncle Al did and leave a legacy. And he’s done fairly well with it. He sees it as ultimately philosophical and political, hence his aeonic theories.

Phil is more personal and “eclectic”. His passion is sociology and psychology, and his work reflects it. Each man has picked what has meaning FOR HIM and projected his magic onto it.

Bonewitz believes in ultimate meaning, of a “magical universe” governed by laws. So did Crowley. Neither would be happy with the idea that the ultimate meaning of the universe is that there is no ultimate meaning of the universe.

Chaos Magic sees nothing but infinite chaos, stochastically dragged into existence by each and every observer according to their predispositions, and by manipulating these predispositions it can be bent in desired directions by a canny intelligence.

<< I like that neither have their roots in age old dead beliefs and stem from those things that draw emotion and passion from the wielder.. much like art… >>

Obviously you’re not familiar with Bonewits’ recent work, being an “Arch Druid” and all. Talk about an age-old dead belief system…

That’s where locked-in belief leads you, I suppose.

- J:.M:.555

Religion vs. Magick

By Joseph Max.555 | April 1, 1995 | Leave a comment

From: “Joseph Max.555″ < max[at]atticus[dot]com >
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Egyptian Magick
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 15:31:14 +0000
Organization: TLGnet, a division of RGNet, Inc.
Message-ID: < >

On 1 Apr 1995, Bill Stender wrote:

<< I haven’t yet recieved the post from Christeos Pir (beautiful name) but I wish to ask him- what did they do to deserve such an insulting comment? >>

The problem most serious occult practitioners have with Schueler’s books is their trivialization of the subject matter and the great liberties they take with their “modernization” of ancient magico-religious practice. They attempt to cast these old ways into modern molds, and often (in the case of their Enochian books) leave large gaps in their information that does not fit into their moral viewpoint. In their Enochia, they completely ignore the procedures for the summoning of “demonic” spirits of the lesser cherubic squares; in fact they don’t even mention their existence except with a passing reference to “avoid” them. If the point is to give a complete reference work (as they bill their “guides” as being) then they should not leave out important parts because _they_ think it’s “dangerous” or “immoral” – that should be left to the practitoner to decide for hirself.

<< To JM: This fluffy-bunny-phobia is something I share, but it’s not necessarily an adequate review…

I see this book containing a definition of many terms/names from the Egyptian religion, followed by a translation of a series of ‘rituals’ (primarily from the Book of the Dead) the rituals are important ones, with a logical arrangement and apparantly straight translation. >>

There is an earlier response to your post which you will probably receive soon (keep an eye out for it, so I won’t have to re-iterate it here) that goes into great detail about the mis-translation of Budge’s work in light of the discoveries of Egyptologists that have happened in the 100 years since Budge. Suffice it to say that if you use Budge as an “original” source of the translation of the BOTD, it’s going to contain errors. Budge was a quite devout Christian and he tried to “westernize” the Egyptian society and rituals due to his prejudice (the same thing happens when people try to “Christianize” the I Ching.) To understand the rites of the Egyptians, you would have to spend considerable time learning to THINK as they did. Without such a cultural background (which the Schueler’s attempt to circumvent to make it palatable to modern Western readers) the working of such rituals has no foundation.

<< I say important because, for me, the clues to the Astral world are very pertinant and these rituals are full of that. >>

You may as well make up your own and simply use the Egyptian God-names. There’s nothing wrong with doing this, and you’ll be no more or less “accurate”. You see, the rituals of TBOD are NOT “magickal” but RELIGIOUS, and the Schuelers have attempted to turn them into “magick”.

In the other response, the author used a great analogy – say somebody took the New Testament and decided to make “magick” out of it – took the prayers and parables of Jesus and converted them into “magick” rituals, and called it “authentic Christian Magick.” Ridiculous, yes? This would be the same as what the Schuelers have done to TBOD.

<< If Budge was the primary source, and he has been superceded- does this affect the accuracy any of the rituals printed in this book? (specifics) and aagain, any other good ones? >>

Well, here’s a reading list – but keep in mind you are trying to force something into a mold that it was not designed for to try to make magick rituals out of TBOD.

  • Egyptian Mythology by Veronica Ions. NY: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1973 [series updated & reissued 1986 by Peter Bedrick Books].
  • The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple by E.A.E. Reymond. NY: Barnes & Noble, 1969.
  • Her-Bak (two volumes) by Isha Schwaller De Lubicz. NY: Inner Traditions, 1954.
  • The Temple in Man by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz_. Brookline, Massachusetts: Autumn Press, 1949.
  • Symbol and the Symbolique by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. NY: Inner Traditions.
  • Sacred Science by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. NY: Inner Traditions, English translation 1982.
  • Egyptian Mysteries by Lucie Lamy. NY: Crossroad, 1981.
  • The Priests of Ancient Egypt by Serge Sauneron. NY: Grove Press (Black Cat Edition), 1980.