Dear Steve et al
I think you are side-stepping the issue just a little -
the question was whether Gardner's 'foundation myths'* are any less credible
than those of Austin Spare. Many of us would love the whole 'witch paterson'
stuff to be true but it probably ain't - seems more likely that it was
something Spare either 'intuited' or perhaps copied from Gardner or his
contacts?? Whereas Gardner's claims to initiation is AFAIK still an open
question.
The question of efficacy of the magical system - seems like another matter
entirely.
That's maybe a bit too focussed on 'results magick' for my personal taste -
i see magick as a religion rather than a technology. Gardner's wicca
certainly deliverers on that i would think. But i don't know why i have to
choose between Gardner's 'wicca' and Spare's handy sigilization methods -
can't they both be true and good?
Surely the point about Chaos Magick is to say that it's the 'intention' of
the operator that makes the magick work - rather than the historical
'authenticity' of the spell?
In this chaosists usually echo the views of Crowley et al - the whole things
about the 'fake' origins of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The fact
is, that the utility of any magical system is always underdetermined by its
historical 'authenticity'.
'Love and do what you will'
mogg
* myth meant in the best sense - ie a la joseph campbell.
re lavey you wrote:
'Umm, well how about being a dualist who believes in
the myth of evil in the first place. And secondly he
was a self avowed fascist. You can't get more wrong
than that in my view :)'
well its more relevant -
I should state i am biased towards the dualist philosophy myself - although
i guess the term is used in several ways - my dualism is more from the Hindu
tradition where there are said to be two irreduceable principles in the
cosmos - the usual metaphor being shiva/shakti.
But i think maybe you mean the manichean philosophy of good and evil as
opposing principles - was that really LaVey's view? if true - its hardly
uninteresting or fallacious?
As to his politics - didn't know he was a fascist but certainly a right
winger -
and i agree it was wrong to associate the satan/seth archetype with
fascism/racism - but as in all these things the first crude expression of an
important belief is refined by later exponants and you can see that to some
extent in its evolution from COS 'satanism' thru TOS ' setanism', to for
example a more yogic, almost tantrik/agori view, in something like 'Storm'.
Perhaps the myth changes those who come into contact? A good myth can
transcend the flaws of its prophets?
___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
|