Transformation Magic

July 7, 2016 | Author: Aegipan | Category: Topics, Religious & Bible Study
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Download Transformation Magic...






he language of “Transformation” floats indiscriminately within and between the worlds of art, magic, and politics. It is a doppelganger concept, a shape-shifting notion, that abandons the rhetoric of hybridity and syncretism in favor of chameleonic residentialism—occupation of all terrain, familiar and alien, foreign and domestic, temporal and enduring. But unlike the chameleon which can be easily identified as a chameleon regardless of its coloration, the doppelganger may never reveal a ‘natural state’ or appearance, yet it remains, always, a doppelganger. Like the survival strategies of Gypsy nomads, “transformation” assumes varying appearances which allow for easy passage, decreased resistance, expanded acceptance, and access to resources. Excited by the paradoxes that too often lend themselves to moments of mutual exclusion, “transformation” seeks to eliminate the inevitable breaches of integrity and conviction by operating wholly in multiple spheres. With its occult origins, revolutionary insinuations, and magical permutations, our understanding of “transformation” possesses the potential to manifest as a unifying strategy capable of truly transforming our rhetoric into reality. SHAMANMAGICIANACTIVISTARTIST One generally understands “transformation” to mean a shift in form; a change from one thing into another. Yet, the implications are radically different depending on the sphere of usage. Strictly speaking, “transformation” occupies the stage magician’s mind as a change in any combination of shape, color, size, weight, or overall essence, achieved through any of a variety of methods—but always illusionistic. Whether we are confronted by a method of substitution or of disguise, the effect is the same: one thing appears to have become another. On the contrary, the traditional shaman may employ some of the same illusionistic tricks as the magician; however, it is the process of transformation, and not the outcome, which dictates the magical moment, the mysterious reality which permeates all reality. For those engaged in politics, “transformation” is the reformative or revolutionary remedy sought to resolve a desperate state of affairs—a reality wrought with illusions. In such a context one attempts to uncover the means behind the manifestation; to reveal or unmask the power and thereby change the prevailing conditions. And finally there is art—an illusion unto itself, so frequently deceived by its own conjurations; yet still we see the potency of “transformation” not as “the magic of art” nor as “the art of magic” but as a magical art which is representative and therefore evocative of emotion, evoking of set purpose some emotions rather than others in order to discharge them into the affairs of practical life.



Art by Kali 65

“vision cannot distinguish between what is seen and the mediation of that scene.” Indeed then, this is no different than the shaman’s worldview— this is real magic . . . or so we are led to believe.

Although the vast majority of creative expressions of liberation are manifested within the fantasy world of Hollywood, we already understand that Hollywood is unreal even if its effects may thoroughly permeate our reality. Despite critics’ antagonisms that “Experience is not real unless it is recorded and validated through the media” millions of New Yorkers didn’t need CNN to tell

To quote the mime, Marcel Marceau, “When the man in the street forgets his dream the theater becomes a myth and a dispenser of signs.”






Why Harry Potter Eventually Loses to the Black Magician (A Battle Between Aleister Crowley and J. K. Rowling) BY DEVIN GALAUDET

In conjunction with my recent interview with Lon Milo DuQuette, this is a college research paper I recently wrote and thought it would be a shame if only the professor had a chance to read it. It is written with the novice in mind.


enjoyed sitting with my intellectual friend at our monthly lunches and could not help but feel smarter. He wore turtleneck sweaters, casual business corduroys, and a thoughtful beard. Beyond the conspicuously missing elbow patches one would expect to find on his jacket, he looked every bit like an academic. I liked his polish and secretly hoped those seated around us saw me in the same light. Alas, my fashion sense exuded angry lumberjack; unfortunately, I never learned to dress smart. However, together we did talk smart. We bandied politics, philosophy, education and numerous controversial subjects. My favorite part of our lunches centered on books: what we read, how it affected us, criticisms, popular trends, we left few stones unturned. Usually the books we talked about held some deep insight into the human experience, as we both were philosophers at heart. We spoke of Descartes, Jung, “far-out” writers like Buckminster Fuller and Timothy Leary and frequently discussed, the mind numbing, Aleister Crowley. I always took pleasure in ideas that challenged reality in a profound way or at least made me think. Therefore, I found it curious when, during one lunch in particular, my academically minded friend reached into his leather bag and produced a cartoon covered children’s book. He slid it across the table and said, “Consider it a gift.” The cover read, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone. I let out an involuntary grunt and combed my brain-cells for some well-deserved sarcasm, he told me, “Don’t say a word, just read it— you’ll love it.” After some brief self-important consideration, I began to read it. I discovered no depth or great insight. The writing evoked no stirring within me except the desire to read the next page. I devoured the clearly written pages one by one until I read them all. Then I went to Costco and bought the jumbo box containing all the available Harry Potter books in hardcover edition. The following day, I bought plastic


T. O. P. Y


dust jacket protectors— just because. Eventually, I would find myself, one midnight, anxiously waiting with a huge crowd of nerdy adults and costumed children for the early-bird purchase of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I just wanted more, like everyone else.

When comparing Aleister Crowley and J. K. Rowling the most glaring understanding suggests these two authors have almost nothing in common beyond having resided in England and writing books. They differed in writing style, point of view and purpose. They lived in different eras and came from different social backgrounds. Rowling, an undeniable international success in over 30 languages and Crowley an undeniable crackpot never found success in selling any books but they do have one major commonality, magic. For Rowling, magic lived behind a secret wall in a world of fantasy. For Crowley, magick4 lived out in the open in a world of reality.

The runaway popularity of the Harry Potter series is now a global sensation and skyrocketed author J. K. Rowling to celebrity status moving her from “humble beginnings” to children’s book queen in just a few years. So, when in a 20021 nationwide poll in England asking for its nation’s 100 greatest heroes, few were surprised to see Rowling’s name along side Shakespeare, Winston Churchill and other important historical notables; she placed 83rd on the list. However, the results from this same poll surprised many by the inclusion of a far less popular and respected writer. Aleister Crowley wrote poetry —terrible incomprehensible poetry. Poetry openly mocked by fellow contemporary W. B. Yeats. Aleister Crowley wrote incomprehensible plays and novels as well. Aleister Crowley wrote instructional guides that purposely misled its readers. Aleister Crowley’s writing inspired Anton LaVey to start the Church of Satan2 and L. Ron Hubbard to start the Church of Scientology.3 Aleister Crowley took drugs, embraced bad press, openly invoked demons from arcane grimoires and lived his life as a magician—all to the chagrin of 1900’s Victorian England and now, modern society. Aleister Crowley came in at number 73 on the same national survey just ahead of King Robert the Bruce and 10 ahead of J. K. Rowling.

According to Carla Power of Newsweek, writing on the “Harry Potter” phenomenon. “Rowling is good copy: a busy mom who wrote much of her first “Harry Potter” adventure while sitting in coffeehouses as her little daughter napped beside her. She presents a Cinderella story every bit as fanciful as the one she concocted in her book.”5 This above sentiment reflects the common opinion

Although the current J. K. Rowling’s series, Harry Potter, finds huge success, the Victorian, esoteric and oft inaccessible writing, of the frequently hated, Aleister Crowley will continue to reach and influence audiences worldwide long after Harry Potter’s popularity fades.



Join My Cult! An Interview with James Curcio BY AGENT 888

James Curcio’s underground novel Join My Cult!, released by New Falcon press in October of 2004 has quickly gained the attention of young people across the country. I managed to get a hold of him after reading the book myself, and had the pleasure of asking him a number of questions that had been nagging me as I read this fascinating, cryptic book. Agent 888: Being involved in this somewhat myself I know the answer to this question . . . but can you briefly explain to me the main premise of the Mother Hive Brain Syndicate? It shows up a lot in the text . . .

James Curcio

James Curcio: It ’s both a parody of a ‘secret organization,’ and a model for how such an organization, or should I say disorganization, could work. Funny that it was originally penned as fiction however many years ago, and somewhere in the process these cells started springing up . . . The Mother Hive Brain concept in the book gets it compared to Robert Anton Wilson’s Illuminatus!, and Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum. And while there is some corollary, and I am a fan of both books, the truth is that the emphasis both of the organization and the book itself are very different. Join My Cult! is very individual and personal. Though “secret societies” are involved it’s almost irrelevant what their doctrines are because the real initiator in life is one’s own life . . . the organization just serves to give them the sense that they are entering into unknown territory . . . that there is more going on than meets the eye than there is . . . which of course there is. The occult is, of course, just the unseen . . . It doesn’t matter really if these groups are or aren’t the secret hands that rule the world. Not in terms of the initiation, anyhow, because if they are what they say they are, they are emissaries for those universal forces and forms. Politics and money are man-made illusions . . . 888: Money is an illusion? JC: Well even if poverty can kill you . . . I know first-hand what poverty is like in America. Having no health insurance, no food, but still having fifteen hours of work to do a day . . . a lot of people think I was insane for that. But the way I saw it, I was willing to die for my work, and there was no point in living, spending my time making an organization I don’t much care for richer while I stay poor and live off their scraps. I’d rather die with dignity. Maybe that’s stubborn but on the flip side—I’m still alive. And I’m still working. But this is still paltry shit. I can’t even imagine living poverty, real poverty, in most countries . . . Despite all of this, money itself is an idea. 19


The Ambidextrous Art of Nemo




Who And What Are Those Egyptian References In “Liber Resh”? BY SOROR LUTEA


he Stele of Revealing, from whence Crowley created Liber Resh, was a translation from the Ancient Egyptian to the French by the assistant creator of the Boulaq Museum in Cairo, under the supervision of the Egyptologist Bugsch Bet in 1904. In 1912, Crowley had the translation done again by Sir Alan Gardiner and Battiscombe Gunn. There were, not surprisingly differences of opinion about some of the words and names. In Crowley’s The Holy Books of Thelema, the modern publishers included an additional modern translation done in 1982. Since the three different translations are available in the above book, I sought to add some otherwise additional historical and phonetic observations upon the three. It is interesting to note, that the words that Crowley created for Liber Resh were never updated and are still found in the first translation. Hail unto Thee who art Ra in Thy rising, even unto Thee who art Ra in Thy strength, who travellest over the Heavens in Thy bark at the Uprising of the Sun. Tahuti standeth in His splendour at the prow, and Ra-Hoor abideth at the Helm. Hail unto Thee from the Abodes of Night! The sun god had a plenitude of names, Ra or Re being the Sun God of Heliopolis.The hieroglyph for Ra is an open mouth, an extended arm and a God seated with a sun and Uraeus upon its head. Watching the sunrise upon the horizon, one can easily see why it appears as a mouth opening, its arms of light extending outward. A God sitting upon the edge of the world, or appearing to be born from the primeval abyss of water, which for the Egyptians was the Red Sea in the East. Budge declares that it was “by the agency of the god Khepera, who brought this result about by pronouncing his own name”. And, indeed, Khepera does proceed Ra coming from the darkness unto the light of day. Ra’s bark is the Sektet (or Manjet) boat (“the barque of millions of years”), which carries Him across the watery abyss of the celestial sky. Sektet can be translated as ‘sek’-that which gathers together and girds itself against something; and, ‘te’-meaning a kiln or hot; and ‘t’ is often used as an ending on nouns; Also, ‘tet’ signifying stability or duration. Thus, the stable “hot boat” which is and protects Ra. The crew of this boat is made up of the gods of creation, wisdom and magic. Tahuti, or Thoth, the God of Wisdom and magic, inventor of hieroglyphic writing and scribe of the Gods sits in the front of the Sektet boat, like the baboon that ceremoniously, every day faces the rising of the sun; but in this case appears as an Ibis bird. Ra-Hoor, is another name for Horus, or meaning “the house of Ra”. An ancient hymn, from the papyrus of Ani describes this. “Thoth stands at the prow of thy boat, smiting all thine enemies,” and


T. O. P. Y

Design art on this page by Jason Justice



Maria DeNaglowska, the Sophia of Montparnasse (1883-1936) CREATED BY TZEENJ

“Ms. DeNaglowska had an Aeonic theory not unlike that of Joachim of Flores, starting with an Age of the Father, than of the Son, followed by the present Age of the Mother, DeNaglowska’s “Third Term of the Trinity”. According to Nikolas and Zeena Schreck “Naglowska did not envision her Third Era of the Mother as a dark age of doom, but the concept of a spiritual age ruled by the Leftwards Shakti power of Woman and the previously reviled powers of Satan/Lucifer can be seen as a Western form of the Kali Yuga”. (“Demons of the Flesh”, p192)


ather like in Vama Marg Tantra, DeNaglowska’s techniques are regarded as the use of the forces which bind as the fuel of liberation.

Her idea of the New Age bringing reconciliation of Lucifer/Satan with God anticipates Robert DeGrimston’s similar ideas some 30 years later. Although she used Satanic imagery extensively, her overall paradigm seemed more Gnostic, and Julius Evola (said to have had a fling with Ms. DeNaglowska) speculated that the Satanic imagery was possibly for shock value or, at best, deconditioning purposes. Remarkably, her extremely-public and overtly sexual “Satanic” Magickal group drew little in the way of ire from the local French populace, it’s being called an “interesting religious experiment” at one point. Remarkable considering the treatment her contemporary Aleister Crowley received around that time. The primary group rite of her Fleche d’Or Magickal group was the “precisely choreographed and controlled” “Mass of Gold”, a practice which seems to resemble the Vama Marg Tantrik Chakra Image by Auburn Dawn



Hillbilly Tantra* BY JAMES CURCIO with art by Michele Witchipoo

“Erotism, it may be said, is assenting to life up to the point of death . . . If a precise definition were called for, the starting-point would certainly have to be sexual reproductive activity, of which erotism is a special form. Sexual reproductive activity is but only humans appear to have turned their sexual activity into erotic activity. Eroticism, unlike simple sexual activity, is a psychological quest independent of the natural goal.” —Bataille.


’m going to start this with what might seem like an odd question. What’s the difference between good and bad sex?

This question drives the glut of crap lit and zines that lines our shopping centers. Of course, in typical materialistic style, they presuppose that there is some “move” or even “device” which will pave the passage between boredom, alienation, even humiliation, and ecstacy. Aside from the fact that it’s easier to sell a “device” or teach a list of 5 secret moves that will drive her wild, these people aren’t asking this seemingly inane question—what’s the difference between good and bad sex? Moreover, what function does sex serve? Perhaps it is a hackneyed idea that sex is at the root of our beings. Any idea which can be traced to Freud is out of vogue these days. However, if you enforce celibacy for a couple months, you might rethink your stance on this. My experience has been that sexuality does not control our psyche from the top down, but it seems to prefigure it from the bottom up. It’s a raw source of energy which drives us out of bed each morning. Aside from being the means by which we reproduce, it is the subversion of this urge which drives us to civilization—and its discontents. If you can control and cultivate your sexual energy, then you are capable of nearly anything. Chinese and ayurvedic medicine both recognize this; harnessing and directing sexual energy is considered paramount to general wellbeing. There is a well-known link between sex and death in the mythologies of the world; the libidinal drive which drives us to participate in the world is also driving us towards our deaths. Life and death are two sides of the same coin, much as man and woman are. And here, plain as day, is the first key to sex magick. The archetypical male and female energies which power and inform the universe can be brought together through a union of a particular male and female energy.1



Q: Why do sigils work? BY COYOTE 340 WITH AOS

It is true without untruth, certain and most true. If belief is not manifested as a truth through the sigil, then no Sigil will work. The Sigil is a living incarnation of our belief, the “trick” happens during the ritual, not after the ritual. It is through the sigil that our desire finds its satisfaction beyond its previously believed object. As below, so above; and as above so below; by these things are made the miracles of one thing. During the ritual we seek to find our way to that which is nothing and yet it is in all things (and so we are). The operation always begins in that which is below. And as all things are, and come from One, by the mediation of One, So all things are born from this unique thing by adaption. And so we do. We would simply not be able to reach something if we weren’t already that “something”. We simply become what we are by getting amazingly objective (i.e, by not subtracting anything from our perceptions). And yet we must trick ourselves because we always believe that we are simply a small part of what we already are. The Sun is its father, the Moon is its mother, the Wind carries it in its belly. the Earth is its nourisher and its receptacle. . . . and yet the neither-neither is none of these things. We often live in a point of view . . . it was not by chance that AOS gave his Kia the shape of an Eye. We need multiple points of view until we realize that what we believed to be true was not true, but a part of a truth. It is the Father of all things, the eternal Will is contained in it. . . . and yet we remain as Children of Earth. Will is the seed that manifests all things, but we have fallen into the inferno of the normal and conventionality exists in our own minds and in our I. Many mystical schools will tell you that you have to destroy your own I . . . do not listen to them . . . At least my “I” wanted to become more than he already is . . . not less. Multiply your I. “Death” has more than one single sense. A Sigil will let you get less focused in that small I that you believed you were . . .



Collages by Kali 106 — IN LOVING MEMORY — 1974—2004



View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.