my unbridled, personal opinion about "ritual magick"

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgPGFcP34t0&list=PLD1E7ECB7BA0CE8BD

Here is basically what I think on the subject of "ritual magick," in a nut's hell, so to pun it:

Firstly, I should say I do not believe in "god." There's nothing up there, IMO. Secondly, let me say that, because I do not believe in "god" what I believe instead is that the concept of "god" is a delusion, a hallucination and can only be substantiated by fiction. So, that being said, it means I view ALL "religious literature" as, at least partially (if not totally) fiction. I view all "religious literature," in fact, as I put it in the lecture series "magick ritual 101," as merely a puzzle that, when put back together, reassembles into the image of "the true metaphysics of magick." However, this itself is a pun. The "true metaphysics of magick" is only a mirror reflecting oneself. Thus, the best way to know it is to "know thyself," autonomously of studying any of the religious literatures. In short, I see religion as a distraction, meant to waste human potential and keep us from achieving our full mental potential. THAT, I would posit, is the "true metaphysics of magick."

However, as such, is ritual relevant? Is it necessary to perform certain "rites" according to certain pre-proscribed methods? The answer to that is simple too: it depends on the use. Ritual magick involves the "summoning" and "banishing" of mental-only forms - "ghosts," "angels," "elementals," "demons," the "ascended masters," etc. In short, ALL of these invisible, intangible, "mental-only forms," regardless of their role, are ONLY imaginary, and guided, as such, only by our minds - act as "servitors" or extensions of the invoker's own will-power. They act as invisible, intangible go-between's connecting the "operator" to their "target" so they can manipulate it to their will. If this means picking up a candle stick across the room, or derailing a train load of coal in Scotland, or killing Lady Chatterley by "remote influencing" from a location 1/2 across the globe from her, it is all the same to these "servitors" once they have been summoned and tasked. If one wishes to do a "good" thing, one may summon "angels" according to the rituals of "theurgy" and "angelology" and if one wishes to do a "bad" thing, one may summon "demons" according to the rituals of "goetia" and "demonology;" it is no different from using a phone-book, but doing so only matters if one has a task or goal they want to do. If you use "ritual magick" to summon up a "servitor" only to chat, the "trick" will not last, and ultimately you will see, as I have seen, that this whole charade is a mirage.

If "god" is a hallucination, then the "servitors" of magick are doubly so. The mind-state that sired forth the "religious literature" is called "mysticism," but we all recognize it as a condition of hallucination and personal detachment. The most common method of self-induction of the "mystic" trance by shamans is by using drugs. "Ritual magick," however, was invented as a method of inducing this "mystic" mind-state bypassing the need for drugs. Instead, one uses "ritual magick" to achieve a heightened sense of awareness, but even this lasts only very briefly, and in either case it is, ultimately, the "mystic" writings or "religious literature" brought back from fantasy-land as "proof" for the communal delusion of theism that, from the perspective of history, is all that finally matters. If one practices meditation and ritual magick, let alone tantric sex-magick, only recreationally, one will quickly find their mind's inspirations drying up and their own curiosity ebbing.

Personally, I do not practice ritual magick. I have transcribed many prior grimoires into my own edition, but I have never had use to summon any of these "servitors" for a task. I believe things are better off left alone without the petty freedoms of our species being limited still further by their desire to pact with demons to bind against one another's advancements. I have no desire to limit the free-will of others, so I have no use for "ritual magick;" because it is only by influencing the minds of other people, and not directly, that these magical "servitors" can accomplish any goal one would set them to.

I am familiar with the fact there are varying modern schools on what material constitutes "magick," let alone the "true metaphysic" thereof. However, it remains my true opinion, that is truly my opinion, that the high pomp and circumstance (that is required) in "ritual" is a means of substituting for a purely chemical euphoric condition, rendering the mind more susceptible to MK conditioning. And therein enters the "true metaphysics of magick": behind the tricks and showmanship, the dazzle and spark of the performer, there is only what "hidden meaning" or "secret truth" that we, ourselves, imbue unto it, and this can NEVER be 1:1 identical to ANY message with which we are being programmed after such a stimulus. The "knowledge lection" is futile to include AFTER the rituals, because the rituals, once gone through, are all one will remember. For these reasons I cannot count myself among the modern schools of urban shamans, poetic terrorists and chaos magicians who practice "toxic" magick such as NLP or MK; any kind of magick that diminishes the free will of another is detrimental, also, to one's self. However, I still cling to these schools' Crowleyian roots in ethical Thelema and in Crowley's assertion (from the introduction to the Goetia: http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/lks/lks03.htm ) that, essentially, all magical phenomenon begin and end in the mind of the operator. Everything in between is merely a controlled series of synchronicities which Crowley adjudicated the "initiated interpretation of ceremonial magick." Insofar, however, as I apparently alone remain a purist to this definition, even unto understanding its full implications - that "magick" is merely controlled, collective madness - the majority of modern practitioners do NOT bother to differentiate in their dealings between what is necessarily "true" and what is most likely "false," and in this error fall into the "dark side" of the arts, such as, as I'd mentioned before, NLP and MK. I consider myself an ethical Thelemite, adhering to the wise words of Liber Oz, and a strict adherent to Crowley's definition of "magick" as "mental" in substance and nature. However, I cannot condone the beliefs or practices of the modern practitioners of "chaos" and "toxic" magick. Because their contributions are selfish, they will fall along the wayside of history, and so I do not worry about their doings, though I am aware of and up-to-date on them. The "illuminatis" in the plural that exist today alone are enough to keep a grown man busy researching for a half a decade. But I know the truth, and their true origins.

In a situation wherein, as they say, "cooler heads prevail," and there is calm allowing reflection over "gravitas," and when one can pause and collect their composure, then there IS NO SUCH THING as a "true metaphysics of magick," because, IN REALITY, "magic is all illusion, and magick merely the art of casting this illusion over oneself." One may do this by any means, but doing so will weaken one's bonds to "Sanity," to "normalcy" and to "society" at large. Likewise, when we are "stone cold sober" and of a "clear and sound mind," then we KNOW, beyond doubt, there can be no such thing as "god." Yet, once we descend again into the delusion of our intellect by our senses, we forget this, and chase the idea like a child chasing a butterfly. It is ONLY AN ILLUSION. It is ALL only a LIE. Those who believe in "magick" of those schools that advocate NLP or MK are not much different from little kids running around playing with D&D dice, pretending to be Harry Potter. But these dice are loaded and, while they are distracted by their cos-play fantasies, they might go off.

The "purpose of ritual magick" is, as stated, "manifesting intent." And if you can show me a worthwhile and en masse beneficial "intention" that requires "magick" for it to be accomplished, I will be quite surprised to say the least.

I have no evidence indicating the existence of any form of "deity," and on the contrary only a large quantity of evidence that no "good" nor moral "justice" nor "idealism" nor "utopia" can exist in reality, and only compromised, lesser forms of these things can become manifestly real.

BUT, it is NOT my intention to claim "ritual magick" is only hokum or that it does not work. It induces a massive psychosomatic effect that enables an individual to "think outside the box" of their prior, mundane, conditioned thought-patterns. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying it is not a good thing that it does. I'm saying humanity is too dangerous to wield it at its full extent for application, on a "cosmic scale," as you point out; we are not ready, and we are likely to NEVER be "ready," for the right to mental-only manifestation that can effect the entire local universe. Humanity are DANGEROUS, and to our kind on the whole, "magick" is only a WEAPON.

I do not consider the "masses" to be "profane" because I cannot objectively consider anyone "sacred." There are a few legendary "prophets" from the fictional histories of "mystics" who contributed to religious literature. The events of their lives have been in these contexts conflated to appear supernatural. Jesus was not better or more special than anyone else. He was no more the "only son of god" than is Buddha. Likewise, the meditations attributed to Buddha are simply common sense to anyone who invests sufficient time to contemplate upon their content. If there is no "god," then the lives of ALL "mystics," shamans and "prophets" are merely descriptions of lunatics and their crazy personal beliefs. None of the "great thinkers" of history matters more than any other, nor do all of them combined matter more than the collective masses living today. The people we look down on as though as they are "alien" to us only because of their appearance differing from ours are no "better" nor "worse" than you, nor I, nor Jesus, nor Buddha, nor "God" on High Himself. In fact, they, you and I are even better than Jesus, Buddha or God, because we, at least, are real, and not merely fictional characters.

Thus, I do not differentiate between myself and my own concerns and "the masses" and those concerns that speak to the entirety of the species survival. I do not think we are worthy of universal power, yet (nor would I hope we would ever acquire such), but that does not mean I think our species deserve to be exterminated only because the vast majority are "stupid." We deserve to be exterminated NOW so that we will not be able to acquire universal power later. We should not seek it, but we invented the idea of "God," and now people clamor over one another to get to the top of any and every power-structure available on this sinking ship. We deserve death now because we will never deserve power, and in the future, we would seek it on a universal scale.

And this cannot be implemented by us. We can neither hope for the successful implementation of mass-scale "population reduction" by "eugenics" NOR for there being a "revolution of the mind" in the remnant left alive to overthrow such an immoral agenda. IF humanity IS to be destroyed, it HAS to occur from WITHOUT, from OUTSIDE. We cannot commit suicide as an entire species because it goes against our own innate instincts to do so as individuals. This is why I laugh at concepts like "population reduction" and "martial law," because they would not succeed, and only prove to be a big waste of time and money spent trying, resulting in merely a minor historical blip on the curve of our species actual survival and evolution. "What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger." If we TRY and FAIL at suicide, we would only become strengthened in our goal of "becoming gods" or "like unto god" etc.

The danger is NOT that we might fail, or that we are, for now, so stupid en masse; the danger is that we WOULD succeed, we WOULD become "like unto gods," and that, even if the MAJORITY of us were "good gods," moral and obedient to the common-laws, there would still remain some among us who, now imbued with the POWER OF GOD ALMIGHTY, would remain at least POTENTIALLY corruptible and "evil at heart." If the universe IS sentient, and self-aware, and there IS such a thing as the "universal mind" and so a form of "god," then it will have to act in self-defense to preemptively prevent our threatening it's role of authority. Thus, God will HAVE to murder mankind to prevent man becoming God. This is ALSO a belief inherent in EVERY religious literature: eschatology. The "day of atonement," "Judgement day," or "the day of resurrection," all the monotheist faiths believe that, BECAUSE MAN BELIEVES GOD INTO EXISTENCE, GOD (similar to your suggestion about "skynet") MUST DESTROY MAN TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM US.

The only difference between "god" being a "universal mind" and "skynet" being a machine that, on an atomic-scale, can replicate a holographic simulation of a virtual reality, and create a form of "Matrix" that exists NOW in the form of human society, is that, while "god" is a fiction from the past, "skynet" is a potential reality in our own near future. "God" IS PROBABLY a lie; "skynet," on the other hand, will PROBABLY become real. THAT is why mankind will NEED to be exterminated, not BY "skynet" itself necessarily, but by the cosmos itself to protect itself and the greater reality from humanity.

The term "information age" ONLY applies to those who are wealthy enough to have access to this wonderful "information superhighway" we all take so much for granted. If you are a child in sub-Saharan Africa, and struggling to find food and clean water enough to stay alive, you are not even aware that someone as "enlightened" as you or I could even exist, let alone would consider them "ignorant" in comparison to ourselves. Granted, "ignorance" implies "to ignore," but then there is "willful ignorance" and simple human stupidity. Humans are born stupid. They are not born knowing the nature of "good and evil;" they are born in a condition of divine enraptured bliss alike the supposed nirvana of the Buddha. This, however, does not mean either that they are born "blank slates." Even before birth children begin learning, even if their only mental exercise within the womb is dreaming and stretching their nascent imaginations. If a fetus is subjected to Mozart music from the world beyond, they have a better reaction to the world that awaits them than if the fetus is subjected to nicotine or other harmful chemicals. No one is ever a "blank slate" genetically (unless immolated utterly) because even after death, if buried, some tissues' DNA continues to replicate and produce growth. Living organisms are always growing, always changing. But there can be, ultimately, no permanent "improvement" in this process. Anything perceived of as such is inherently flawed by being only momentary, only temporary. We are all equal ONLY in the regards that we are all infinite in our potential mental capacity, and all cursed to death before fulfilling such. GIven conditions as such a situation, we have no real "free will" to apply toward any "beneficial" or "ethical" ends, because all such ends are predetermined to fail. Thus, we may do as we choose: good or evil, but in the end, because we all die regardless of whether we did good or evil, it ultimately does not make any difference whether we choose to try to accomplish mass, historic "good" or simply go through the motions, going to along to get along, and watching silently as our society commits war-crimes and atrocities against humanity and earth. We can do whatever we want to do. Nothing we can do will work out for us.

I'm glad you would agree that "good" outlives "evil," but you must have also realized this implies that "good" means universal entropy and "evil" would then be equivalent to negentropic life itself. Rather than quibble about whether you, or I, or "we in general" would agree to some moot rhetorical hypothetical I proposed, we should focus on our agreement that what is good for the "gander" is what is evil for the "goose." The above is opposed to the below, and this means, as you put it, "a lot" to say the least. There is plenty of time for romanticized hyperbole on the exactly specific nature of the non-existent deity, but whether you posit it as the dead-matter of nature, that the "gray matter" cells of the cosmos are not "living" in the sense we would consider, or that it is "god," and that the cosmic brain is self-aware, EITHER WAY it remains: this macrocosm is competing AGAINST us in the microcosm. This competition merely manifests on the outside as a socio-economic symptom of human existence. But underneath this layer of soapy sheen or slick of grime lies the haunting of the "holy ghost," and whether or not they may believe it, ALL humans are being kept down and held back by the belief by the majority in "god," and this belief exists for the protection of nature against our kind achieving our full mental potential.