Basically I know that Phil Hine is a Chaos magician but wouldn't the New Flesh be a path thats more LHP than chaos magick? Opinions anyone?

The LHP is covered under 'chaos magic'. What defines the LHP are those who "walk their own walk" and do not listen to what others have to say, and that's just how chaos magic works, you do what works best for you, and you don't succumb to any fallacious rules.

So the LHP is a sub-style of chaos magic; I believe that is the best and simplest way to put it.

It is indeed.

Of course, in that regard a number of ceremonialists would be considered LHP; Crowley comes to mind. Or anyone, on any path, thats an innovationist. I would admit that the Chaos "path' would be more universially suggestive of this (at least the general leaders of that movement).
But there is really quite a bit of "walking your own path" that develops out of higher ceremonial work. I happen to know more then a few ceremonialists on internet boards that have developed thier own magickal directions . . . listening (in truth) only to thier own inner direction.

Would they (greater or lesser known) be considered LHP?

(and less ontopic . . . would this be just a second "Whats LHP? thread)

This post has been edited by palindroem: Feb 13 2007, 11:39 AM

Ave

I will digress before I start about innovation being a mode of action and not an ethic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Remember, it was Peter J. Carroll who said that the so-called Right-hand and Left-hand Paths meet in ways indescribable. If you practice chaos magick, you should be concerned with results, not ethics.

Ad Scientiam

This post has been edited by Lucian: Feb 14 2007, 02:25 AM

LHP and RHP and Middle Path were first picked up as phrases from Tantic Buddhist Magick, which heavily influenced Peter Caroll and Phil Hine (and Crowley, in fact -- after he left the GD, he traveled the far east and became adept at Taoist and Tantric arts). Chaos doesn't generally go down the path of discussing paths (pun intended). In my opinion, it's all one path. If you are self motivated, or even classical LHP, who's to say this is less noble than RHP. I don't think (personal opinion) Crowley or Caroll or Hine cared what people thought of them as. To them, it was all one path to one goal (I don't know -- I'm only guessing. Who can know Crowley's mind? He had such a wicked sense of humor! And he had a brilliant mind. He also courted publicity. Controversy is always the easy path to awareness and publicity -- by this definition any PR firm has to be considered LHP!)

So, I don't think LHP or any path applies to Hines or Crowley's work, and it only applies to those who care about such artificial moralities. The guilt-baggage we carry tends to translate our great works into paths, but -- like all things -- it's all illusory.

As I understand it, Left Hand Pathism is not really "walking your own path," as others put it. From what I've read about the Left Hand Pathist faiths are that they are offsets of Right Hand Pathist faiths and are described as the following:

Left Hand Path: The raising of the self up to divinity instead of subjugating one's self to a deity and grovelling at their feet.
examples: Tantra (raising yourself up to meet with divinity instead of bowing before it) and Satanism (following the path of the adversary in making yourself a "god" in your own right; raising up to a status of Divinity), Gnosticism (denouncing of a "great god" and the belief that the true God believes in our absolute will and allows us to reach him in our own ways).

Right Hand Path: The lowering of one's self and the raising of one's deity.

examples: Christianity (lowering one's will and only following God's), Hinduism (humbling one's self to the will of many deities and worshipping them)