Art, Magick and Thelema

nigris (333)

unread,

Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98

to

49971128 aa2 Hail Satan!

E6

Andrew Spitzer <io...@ix3.ix.netcom.com> talks about a concert:
# ...Very exciting, high enrgy (especially for
# him being such an old fart!) and hence very magical.

I have often found the concerts in which I've participated (as singer,
dancer, bodily experiencing the rite on stage, rather than being among
the spectators or audience) were quite transformative, magical.

# I feel there is something inherently magical in well executed art/music.

agreed, and it is this element of art I'd like to attempt to analyse over
the course of the next 10 years. your post inspires me to carry over some
of the IRC conversation I had about it recently for seeded brainstorming.

# The performer has created a change in accord with his or her will, and
# that has had an effect in at least the consciusness of the audience.

in IRC (EFnet #spirituality) we were comparing our ideas (which just
happened to be compatible and in the comportment derived of Crowley)
about science within the general discussion about magick and
contrasting these with art. here is the supposition we seemed to
agree upon at that time:

science: the process by which, through interaction with and
observation of phenomena, experiment and analysis lead
we change our interior ideation patterns toward a
predictive-quality matching between our knowledge-set
and interpreted events

art: the process by which we change external phenomena
toward comformity with interior ideation patterns
or consonance to it and its nature (emotional,
intellectual, parallel, reflective, etc.).

that is, science and art appear to be working with the same elements but
in rather reverse manners. engineering -- artistry utilizing today's
materialist science, is typically conflated with the pure scientific
process, making the matter all the more difficult to understand.

magick, by these (and, I contend, Crowley's) measures, is an exercise of
BOTH science and art to achieve change in some medium in conformity to
the Way of the cosmos, the Will of God, or, in the terminology of the
liberated, the true will of the mage. comments/analysis/reflection
welcome.

# Some would argue that all magick is Thelemic by definition.

this is rational if one does not require it be performed by a human
being, qualifies by virtue of arising in response to volition, and
does not require some guiding ethical standard of assessment.

# ...Thelemicity can be defined (if one chooses) as using themes or
# symbols from the idiom that we generally call Thelema. This would include
# references from or imagery relating to Liber AL, Crowley's body of
# rituals and poetry, etc.

a very similar measuring standard as you have elsewhere suggested for the
identification of 'Christian magick' (magick using themes or symbols from
the idioom that we generally call 'Christian', of lesser or greater
specificity). just as with the term 'Christian' we immediately enter into
the controversy over what truly qualifies as 'Thelemic': which elements
should be considered 'central', which 'grafted onto the core', etc. for
any who attempt this assessment they may bring different criteria to bear
in making it.

your isolation of _Liber Al vel Legis_ and Crowley's work is entirely and
logically debatable. just because Crowley seeks to enshroud his work and
scriptural Evil Book in a mantle of Thelemic character says nothing about
whether it truly serves this ideal or instead attempts to co-opt that same
ideal for the purposes of his literal diarrhea and self-aggrandizement.

one could suggest, for example, with some persuaveness, that Crowley was
merely a writer and a visionary who, having noticed that the world culture
was bound to pay greater and greater attention to individualistic and
libertine philosophies in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, sought
to enmesh his name and peculiar literary foci into its interior so as to
preserve his ego, thumbing his nose at his detractors. one might select
other, more convincing and original, philosophers to represent the
'Thelemic' ideal (say Berkeley, Hume, Nietzsche, Kafka, Heidegger, Sartre,
Rabelais and any number of Revolutionaries pursuing the cause or analysis
of the individual) and take their themes and preferences for character as
symbolic of 'Thelemic' ideals. it might not conform to the popular
sludge that adheres to magick in the aftermath of Crowley's passage of
'Thelema', but it would be no less valuable for its Thelemic assertion.

# This would make the work at least taxonomically Thelemic,

based on linguistic usage, yes. alternatives might be, as I have
said above, along philosophic parameters, or based on some other
criteria for which 'Thelemic' is meaningful to the evaluator.

# This other angle are those who's work relates the discovery of will
# and the subsequent doing of said will, without using the themes
# and symbols of the idiom that we tend to know and love as "Thelema".
# This may be obviously show in the body of artistic works, as I feel
# that some of the late '70s punk rockers did, or it may be more a
# product of presentation of the work and even lifestyle of the artists.

the idea of 'will' and speculation about it would form a kind of envelope
of significance within which certain enshrining sources might be emphasized
in this type of analysis. members of all the world's religious and
philosophic cultures who center on 'will' or 'volution' of some sort could
be valuable compared and contrasted, forming what could be a much more
convincing body of argument and lore than what is otherwise maintained by
the 'Thelemic' religious cultus.

# There are many ways to skin this falcon. Any takers?

I don't really like the idea of skinning falcons, but I have been
keeping an eye out for philosophers and religious whose text focusses
on the *individual* will. some of the names in the list above might
qualify, but I'd have to do a much more thorough investigation into
first Western and then Eastern sources before I think such a foray
would yield valuable fruit. Crowley would likely become little more
than a footnote in such a compendium of ideas and themes, given his
penchant for emulating Christianity in his lack of innovative genius.

E6/6/6
nigris (333)
--
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); 408/2-666-SLUG
http://www.abyss.com/tokus FUCK http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi

airhead

unread,

Mar 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/4/98

to

nigris (333) wrote:

This is exactly the process of 'learning' about the external world is it not?
Every infant sticking random things in it's mouth right now is practicing
science. :)

>
>
> art: the process by which we change external phenomena
> toward comformity with interior ideation patterns
> or consonance to it and its nature (emotional,
> intellectual, parallel, reflective, etc.).

I have been pondering this distinction for a while now. For the most part, I
agree. However, I have a little trouble with your supposition for art, at
least when in regards to painting/drawing and possibly poetry. (music seems
to me exactly as you say)

The advent of cameras freed artists from the burden of being purely
descriptive (in fact, it made such painting obsolete) and it is true that
modern art has become ever more interperative. In its more extreme forms, it
is exactly as you say - a change in the external materials to conform with the
artists internal processes. However, the paintings created before cameras are
still art and, while they are not entirely free of the artist's 'interior
ideation patterns,' the ultimate goal was an accurate representation of the
external object. Achieving this goal *does* require a change in one's
interior patterns as anyone who has struggled with the problems of
fore-shortening and perspective would agree. Replace words and equations with
lines and colors and you have basically your supposition for science.

>
>
> that is, science and art appear to be working with the same elements but
> in rather reverse manners. engineering -- artistry utilizing today's
> materialist science, is typically conflated with the pure scientific
> process, making the matter all the more difficult to understand.

My point, if I have any, is that the directional dichotomy between art and
science that you describe can be found within art itself. Conversely,
consider technology and science as one and the dichotomy is found there as
well. While basic science seeks to shape our ideas about the world by
observation of the external, technology seeks to affect the external world by
those ideas in accordance with our will.

My words do not affect your conclusion much; just muddies up your pretty
distinctions. :)

> magick, by these (and, I contend, Crowley's) measures, is an exercise of
> BOTH science and art to achieve change in some medium in conformity to
> the Way of the cosmos, the Will of God, or, in the terminology of the
> liberated, the true will of the mage. comments/analysis/reflection
> welcome.
>

Would then this be true? magick is an exercise to bidirectionally bring the
internal and external into conformity with each other?

--
There's a fine line between an open mind and an empty head.

Tom Schuler

unread,

Mar 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/4/98

to

airhead wrote in message <34FCEBE4...@mindspring.com>...

>The advent of cameras freed artists from the burden of being purely
>descriptive (in fact, it made such painting obsolete)

Not obsolete. Merely unfashionable. I know an artist who used to paint very
realistic scenes and she was actively discouraged from doing so by university
art teachers.

The Pan of OC

unread,

Mar 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/4/98

to

Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> airhead wrote in message <34FCEBE4...@mindspring.com>...
>
> >The advent of cameras freed artists from the burden of being purely
> >descriptive (in fact, it made such painting obsolete)
>
> Not obsolete. Merely unfashionable. I know an artist who used to paint very

> realistic scenes and she was actively discouraged from doing so by university
> art teachers.

And that is very VERY sad. No one, especially teachers of art, should
discourage any form of expression. But it is all to common I'm afraid.
Thankfully, most artists, schooled or no, have enough personal drive to
ignore such discouragement. At least I hope that's the case.

Pan

joshua geller

unread,

Mar 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/4/98

to

The Pan of OC <oh...@pacbell.net> writes:
> Tom Schuler wrote:

> > airhead wrote in message <34FCEBE4...@mindspring.com>...

> > >The advent of cameras freed artists from the burden of being purely
> > >descriptive (in fact, it made such painting obsolete)

> > Not obsolete. Merely unfashionable. I know an artist who used to
> > paint very realistic scenes and she was actively discouraged from

> > doing so by university art teachers.

IHNJH, IJLS 'university art teacher'.

unread,

Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98

to

Tom Schuler

unread,

Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98

to

Tom Schuler

unread,

Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98

to

In article <ypv3egw...@shell5.ba.best.com>, joshua geller wrote:

>for some reason this reminds me of unlearning the gag reflex.
>
>maybe it's just me.

The pronunciation uses at least three different types of lip and tongue
movements. All that activity is interestng.

joshua geller

unread,

Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98

to

d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) writes:
> In article <ypv3egw...@shell5.ba.best.com>, joshua geller wrote:
> >d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) writes:
> >> In article <ypv4t1e...@shell5.ba.best.com>, joshua geller
> >> <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:

> >> >IHNJH, IJLS 'university art teacher'.

> >> I liked "postpartum glossolalia" better.

> >for some reason this reminds me of unlearning the gag reflex.

> >maybe it's just me.

> The pronunciation uses at least three different types of lip and tongue
> movements. All that activity is interestng.

indeed! and one of them does in fact model the gag reflex.

thanks tom!

josh

nagasiva

unread,

Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98

to

49980306 aa2 Hail Satan!

nagasiva:
>> ...science within the general discussion about magick and

>> contrasting these with art. here is the supposition we seemed to
>> agree upon at that time:
>
>> science: the process by which, through interaction with and
>> observation of phenomena, experiment and analysis lead
>> we change our interior ideation patterns toward a
>> predictive-quality matching between our knowledge-set
>> and interpreted events

airhead <ka...@mindspring.com>:

>This is exactly the process of 'learning' about the external world
>is it not? Every infant sticking random things in it's mouth right
>now is practicing science. :)

correct, a process of 'coming to know' using The Scientific Method
(the only way to learn). cf.:

http://www.hollyfeld.org/Esoteric/Avidyana/Gnostik/l.scire.fn

>> art: the process by which we change external phenomena
>> toward comformity with interior ideation patterns
>> or consonance to it and its nature (emotional,
>> intellectual, parallel, reflective, etc.).

> ...I have a little trouble with your supposition for art, at least
>when in regards to painting/drawing and possibly poetry....

>The advent of cameras freed artists from the burden of being purely

>descriptive (in fact, it made such painting obsolete) and it is true

>that modern art has become ever more interperative....

tell that to that Andy Worhol.

>...the paintings created before cameras are still art and, while

>they are not entirely free of the artist's 'interior ideation
>patterns,' the ultimate goal was an accurate representation of the

>external object....

adopting what could be called an 'objective interior ideation
pattern' requires no change in the above ideas. it wasn't a
*representation* so much as an approximation to certain
physiological standards of appearance which are commonly
shared.

>Achieving this goal *does* require a change in one's
>interior patterns as anyone who has struggled with the problems of
>fore-shortening and perspective would agree. Replace words and
>equations with lines and colors and you have basically your
>supposition for science.

visible perception can be approximated without necessarily coming
to know a thing/person/place in the sense of science. consider
that this was in his own weird way the same which Monet attempted,
albeit from a poor-sighted standard, and to great effect. the
pointalists like Serat achieved superior visual standards
comparable to and leading toward computer-artistry.

each is working with perception as much as with the medium and
reflecting on the experience. drawings take strange shape on
account that people don't tend to achieve the objectivist role,
instead intruding on the perceptual landscape with projections.
now we have Dali showing us our unconscious mind.

>> that is, science and art appear to be working with the same elements but
>> in rather reverse manners. engineering -- artistry utilizing today's
>> materialist science, is typically conflated with the pure scientific
>> process, making the matter all the more difficult to understand.

>...the directional dichotomy between art and science that you

>describe can be found within art itself.

that art is a doing expression somewhat excludes the scientific
enterprise, though there is a certain 'science of artistry' just
as their is an 'artistry of science'. neither obviates or
occludes the other, however. the directionalities remain
consistent.

>...consider technology and science as one and the dichotomy is
>found there as well.

suddenly you get into engineering. technology is a means by
which art and sport are effected. science enables it, just
as technology supports scientific enterprise, but the two are
forever different from one another by virtue of result.

>While basic science seeks to shape our ideas about the world by
>observation of the external,

now I'll get picayune. 'basic science' seeks nothing. it is
a process. human beings seek to shape their ideas about the
world THROUGH basic science, whether that be in observation
of the external (modern Science) or the internal (mysticism).

>technology seeks to affect the external world by those ideas
>in accordance with our will.

again, technology seeks nothing until it gains consciousness
of its own (tell that to Deep Blue). human beings seek to
affect the world by applying science to the capacity of
creating new tools for this influence. an artwork itself,
technology is related to doing, not to knowing.

>> magick, by these (and, I contend, Crowley's) measures, is an exercise of
>> BOTH science and art to achieve change in some medium in conformity to
>> the Way of the cosmos, the Will of God, or, in the terminology of the

>> liberated, the true will of the mage....

> ...magick is an exercise to bidirectionally bring the internal and

> external into conformity with each other?

lovely, but sometimes magick is intended to create disconformity.

nagasiva

dave

unread,

Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98

to

nasagavia = as a vagina?

kali

unread,

Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98

to ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com

nagasiva wrote:

> >While basic science seeks to shape our ideas about the world by
> >observation of the external,
>
> now I'll get picayune. 'basic science' seeks nothing. it is
> a process. human beings seek to shape their ideas about the
> world THROUGH basic science, whether that be in observation
> of the external (modern Science) or the internal (mysticism).

Forgive me for the anthropomorphism. Humans tend to do that; it's why we have
gods. ;)

Did you also correct this person? I did not follow the rest of this thread.

Larry Seiler wrote (in Re: Prayer and Christian Magick):
>I have often said that science and sorcery are not far off. Science seeks
>to understand the forces of nature to harness them and seek to find
>benefit. Sorcerers seek to understand the forces of nature and harness
>them for their own bidding.

nagasiva wrote:

> >> magick, by these (and, I contend, Crowley's) measures, is an exercise of
> >> BOTH science and art to achieve change in some medium in conformity to
> >> the Way of the cosmos, the Will of God, or, in the terminology of the
> >> liberated, the true will of the mage....
>
> > ...magick is an exercise to bidirectionally bring the internal and
> > external into conformity with each other?
>
> lovely, but sometimes magick is intended to create disconformity.

There is no real dispute here. You are defining 'science' and 'art' in the
most idealized sense of the terms. As a scientist by vocation and "weekend"
artist, I reacted to the terms as I deal with them on a daily basis. Given
your definitions, I have no problem with your conclusion.

I am much more interested in the original intent of this thread (or what I
perceived it to be) - a discussion on art as (a tool for) magick.

In my studies, I consistently find that knowledge/rational thought comes
easier than faith/intuition (belief without objective verification). The
practice of ritual makes it easier to "believe" (as if going thru the motions
can lead to faith?!) but still my mind frets over reasons/explanations.

Recently I have been attempting to use art (painting) as a way to get around
this problem because "art" is something for which my mind does not need an
explanation. I have been creating minimalist brush paintings (ink on paper),
trying to convey the idea in mind with the fewest strokes possible. It is the
process that most interests me (for reasons I do not quite understand, my mind
quiets while painting) but it occurs to me that the resulting image could be a
sigil. <g> I am reinventing a very old wheel; images of buffalo on stone ...

More recently, I have been thinking that Chinese calligraphy might supply
quite serviceable sigils. The characters are originally representational
(kinda like my minimalist paintings) but foreign enough to me that their
meanings would not be obvious.

opinions?