A Perspective, Paradigms and Chaos Magick Options

Paradigm.

That simple term has become a notorious mallet against the knee - which often tends to trigger a quick, negative jerk reaction.

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, a movement ignited among business gurus to use that word as part of the now notorious phrase “paradigm shift.” At first, the reaction to usage of that phrase mostly was curiosity about what was meant. After a while, when it started catching on, and more and more people starting hurling it around at every opportunity (whether they did, or did not, comprehend what it meant) – when people started using the phrase to sound as if they were in the proverbial know, and/or were hip to the latest rhetorical fad – it fell out of favour with epic flames. In fact, both the word “paradigm” and the phrase “paradigm shift” still seems to be considered by some these days to be an opportunity and for heaping a smarmy, sneering, steaming load of linguistic dung on anyone who dares to use them – regardless of whether one using them offers a clear and cogent explanation for such usage.

I am going to put on my hip high wading boots here, and risk the rancid rainstorm, by flat out saying that the term “paradigm” is useful for me – and explaining the meaning that I associate with it, in addition to how it connects with Chaos Magick.

**********

For me, the words system, paradigm, model, and approach do not reference the same meaning. They are not synonyms for each other. Instead:

A paradigm is a specific type of system.
All paradigms are systems – but all systems are not paradigms.

Clarifying this a bit further:

A paradigm is the specific type of system - comprised from a combination of at least two (and can include more than two) interconnected models - that enable one both to comprehend, and to engage, events.

Such comprehension includes discerning and analyzing events.
Such engagement includes instigating and manipulating events.

Note: I am using the term “manipulating” there according to a neutral way that neither necessarily means, nor necessarily implies, exercising any sort of diabolical control.

Some examples for paradigms would be:

Enochian,
Kabbalah,
Biblianism (any paradigm based upon the Bible),
Koranianism (any paradigm based upon the Koran),
Taoism,
Wiccanism,
Thelema, etc…

A model also is a specific type of system. As with paradigms to systems: all models are systems – but all systems are not models. A single model is not a paradigm. Models can be, but are not necessarily, aspects of paradigms.

Some examples for models would be:

Elemental models (which provide explanations about the elements and how to use them);

Dimensional/planar/aethyral/etc… models (which provide explanations about various levels/layers/realms/etc… and how to visit, incorporate, etc… them)

Karmatic models (which provide explanations about cause and effect, how to navigate using them, what their consequences are, etc…)

Oracular models (tarot, runes, etc…)

Entity models (what entities are, what entities do, how entities can be summoned, banished, invoked, evoked, created, etc…)

Etc…

**********

Neither paradigms nor models are approaches.

An approach is how one generally acts with regard to a system. This is admittedly a thin explanation, which might make more sense in light of the following clarification.

There seem to me to be at least four basic and general approaches:

1. Designing Paradigms.

One who designs paradigms is a Paradigm Designer. Paradigm Designs endeavour to craft paradigms (and thus, compose their constituent models).

2. Applying Paradigms.

One who applies paradigms is a Paradigm Applicator. Paradigm Applicators endeavour to use paradigms both to comprehend, and to engage, events.

3. Designing and Applying Paradigms.

One who endeavours both to design and to apply (a) paradigm(s) is a Paradigm Artisan.

4. Dismissing Paradigms.

One who dismisses all talk of, and generally ignores any examination, of paradigms is a Paradigm Dismisser.

**********

What has all this got to do with Chaos Magick?

I have admitted elsewhere, and I will do it again here, that when I first encountered the phrase “Chaos Magick” I was hooked by how cool it sounded.

I was sensationally titillated into an almost maniacal swoon by the notion that Chaos was like some sort of primordial, uber bad-ass stuff, power, force … whatever … that was out there lurking behind the scenes, oozing out from the taboo cracks, crevices, and disreputable corners of existence. That Chaos also was some sort of penultimate antithesis in relation to Order. The dangerous, dark goop that only either the really politically incorrect, hard-nosed, no-nonsense “tough guys” (or gals) could, and would dare to, handle. And that I could somehow, spectacularly, “tap into” Chaos and become a kind of rebel against Order, an uber bass-ass in my own right, demonstrate that hard-nose, politically incorrect, tough, daring to stick my fingers in it – raise fist fulls dripping with Nether Power to the skies, and cackle with awesome might that made the gods shiver and shake in their cloistered heavens at the advent of one with whom they would be anything but eager to reckon.

It was like getting the same sensation from reading a rip snortin’ fantasy novel, where some remarkable Wizard reaches the pinnacle of his ability and puts on a breathtaking show of having had enough of whatever foolishness is going on, then proceeds to go-to-town settling issues in a satisfyingly ultra-dramatic way. And by becoming a Chaos Mage I could do the same – but for real.

Yeah, I admit it.

Thankfully, I grew past it.

A large part of what helped me grow up was encountering the inanity of a bevy of boodlers who were ostensibly into Chaos Magick several years ago who loudly preached, and amptly demonstrated, that they were more interested in performing zany antics, punctuated with a rousing chorus of “Hail Eris!” That turned me off – and it also gave me space to continue working on my spiritual growth, and slowly reconsidering Chaos Magick from another perspective that was far less sensationalistic seeking and megalomaniacally motivated.

From quieter and more sober voices that I stumbled upon during my considerations, I realized the importance of paradigms. After many conversations over the years with others, and many contemplative meditations, I began to figure out that there were individuals calling themselves Chaotes that presented me with the seeds for cultivating quite a different perspective. There were not many of them. Indeed, in places where Chaos Magick was discussed, there might have been only one or two of them out of ten who gave me those precious seeds.

Elsewhere in this forum, I have contrasted them compared to what I have, and will continue here to call, “Traditionalists.” I will briefly quote what I wrote elsewhere in this forum for clarity:

Many of them (magick workers) had experienced negative reactions, for innovatively personalizing practices, from Mages that followed one of the “traditional” paths.

Several different people basically told me that they did not want to be forced to run along routes which were not leading them to where they wanted to go - and/or be whipped for striving to execute practices which were not working for them - before they would be accepted as legitimate magick workers.

Based upon that, I began realizing that many of those “Chaotes” were instigating a movement of members who are free to innovate, free to personalize – and who can give and receive constructive feedback to, and from, each other, that is not mere knee-jerk mockery, derision, warnings, and condemnation just because their explanations and practices were not perfectly parroting the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Abramelin, etc…

And I completely comprehend the need for that.

Instead of being a paradigm – Chaos Magick seems to me generally to be an approach for working magick that allows and encourages exotic explanations, explorations, experiments, innovations, etc…

Once upon a time, magick in general might have inherently meant being free to innovate, to personalize, to explore, to experiment, and to give and receive constructive help from peers. But my observations of what seems most often to happen when one dares to blaze one's own trail off one of the beaten paths - amongst what I will here call “Traditionalists” - has resulted with me comprehending why Chaos Magick came to be, and how Chaos Magick and what I will here call “Traditional Magick” differ compared to each other.

Also instead of being a paradigm – Traditional Magick seems to me also generally to be an approach for magickal work that emphasizes learning explanations provided, exploring routes already trod, experimenting and innovating only when doing so enables one more efficiently to march in line with what has been taught, etc…

And I also completely comprehend the need for that.

I do not consider one to be right and the other to be wrong, because the see the unique usefulness that both provide. In my own practice, I the two approaches as two poles at either end of a continuum of combinational gradations – and I most often weave in and out between them, sometimes being what "Chaotes" would consider as more Traditional, and sometimes being what "Traditionalists" would consider as more Chaotic.

Regardless of either which I approach I use, or how I blend the two together, I have learned that both enable me to work magick according to unique applications of determination, discipline, and discovery.

I also wrote elsewhere (with a bit more added for further clarity):

Seems to me that one shifts from working magick according to the Chaos Magick approach, to working magick according to the Traditional Magick approach, when one shifts from crafting (exploring, experimenting with, and explaining) an innovative paradigm, to using an already established paradigm. i.e. when one shifts from being a Paradigm Designer to being a Paradigm Applicator (of someone else’s paradigm).

That seems to me to be the case, because I have noticed that once people start walking along a path, then they tend to be told how to march, how not to march, and perhaps tend to be pressured to march by those who also are walking the same path. They also tend do the same to others.

And that seems to me to be the essence of the Traditional Magick approach.

But when people craft, design, etc… their respective paradigms – when they blaze their own paths – then they seem to me to have shifted from the Traditional Magick approach, to the Chaos Magick approach.

That seems to me to be the case, because I have noticed that once people start crafting, designing, and blazing they stop harkening, heeding, and harassing others about how to march and how not to march – and they start concentrating on getting busy putting together their respective pragmatic pathways.

And that seems to me to be the essence of the Chaos Magick approach.

To put a bit more of a polish on that here in this post – and to connect it in light of what I posted earlier in this new thread regarding paradigms:

At this point, as I comprehend and consider Chaos Magick as an approach for working magick, it seems to me that a Chaote is one who is a Paradigm Artisan: one who endeavors to design a paradigm, and to apply that paradigm designed, for comprehending and magickally engaging events.

**********

Now, I am fully aware that this is NOT how everyone who is interested in Chaos Magick, and/or who call themselves Chaotes, never mind onlookers, consider all of this. I also do not expect others to adopt my perspective of this here.

When all is done being said, this just represents my perspective to date regarding Chaos Magick.

Growth is still happening as new, and useful, insights become clear to me.

I pretty much agree with everything said in this post and in the other thread. I especially like the idea of looking at the differences between designer/applicator etc..

It seems time is a major factor in that what was once is the "design" stage, enters "application", and later becomes for a lack of a better term "Traditional".

At it's time the Golden Dawn and Thelema appear to be fairly radical ideas at their inception. Up to that time a well-defined and practice oriented, ceremonial magic system had not really been fleshed out. I find it interesting that in it's early years it's scope was quite enourmous. The composition of the order rituals, the flying rolls, the knowledge lectures. At that time it appears they were in the Paradigm Design stage. It moved into the "Application Stage" and members were taken on.

Over time the ideas became firmly established and it expanision seems to have ceased. The flying rolls were no longer added to and for the time being the previous info was reexamined, rather than making large additions.

Does anyone think this is a natural progression of an idea?

I'm not sure how I view the idea of the seperation of chaos magick and traditional magic in terms of approach.

I think what you call the "artisan" approach has always existed, since the beginning of time. Over the years as the "artisan" becomes applied it becomes traditional. While Spare was an "Artisan", due to continual practice a number of his ideas entered the "Application" stage and in some ways became "Traditional", in that they are revisited and duplicated. While Spare remains an "Artisan" the created system shifts from personally crafted to established through application by those who are not the "Artisan".

I guess I'm cool with the idea of a chaote as a Paradigm Artisan if that expression also applies to those who were artisans before "chaotes" as a term existed.

Mainly because I think that one can be a "chaote" and an Artisan but to be a Artisan one needn't necessarily be a chaote.

I want to be careful to not make any assumptions or put words in your mouth so I guess I'll just ask.

Did being a paradigm artist begin with "chaos magick" or is it an eternal process? In my own opinion part of the initial stimulus of "chaos magic" was to place more emphasis on the Artisan approach which had been at a point of decline during the time period. It gave it an added emphasis but did not create the idea.

I don't really have any critiscisms here, I actually find all these ideas extremely well though out. Hoping to kind of flesh out my own views through discussion.

This post has been edited by chaoscrowley37: Mar 5 2006, 06:50 PM

I'm not sure how I view the idea of the seperation of chaos magick and traditional magic in terms of approach.

That statement causes me to suspect that I might have been a little unclear. Please, let me attempt here to recover that part one more time, just in case I was more obfuscating than obvious:

An approach is not a paradigm – but it is how one deals with paradigms.

The four-fold list that I presented for consideration – Paradigm Dismissers, Paradigm Designers, Paradigm Applicators, and Paradigm Artisans – are the four general kinds of approaches, the four general ways that one deals with paradigms.

So considering and talking about Traditional Magick in terms of an approach (not as a paradigm) is considering and talking about Traditional Magick as Paradigm Application (with special emphasis there on applying other people's paradigms). Thus, Traditionalists (those who work magick according to the Traditional Magick approach) are Paradigm Applicators.

Likewise, considering and talking about Chaos Magick in terms of an approach (not as a paradigm) is considering and talking about Chaos Magick as Paradigm Artistry (with special emphasis there on both designing and applying one's own paradigm). Thus, Chaotes (those who work magick according to the Chaos Magick approach) are Paradigm Artisans.


**********


I comprehend the progression that you outlined using the example of the Golden Dawn and Thelema, in relation to celemonial magick before them.

Allow me to focus on the Golden Dawn and Thelema specifically to make the same point yet again:

When the Mages of the Golden Dawn stopped designing their Paradigm, and mostly just applied it – along came Crowley. He started off using the Traditionalist approach (in Paradigm Applicator mode: applying the paradigm that Mathers et al. gave him) – but Crowley soon fully swung into being a Paradigm Artisan, and thus started designing and applying his own thang.

Lo and behold – the Traditionalists of the Golden Dawn did not like that one bit, because instead of being a good apprentice and applying what they taught, Crowley was blazin’ and stompin’ along his own trail. Tensions rose. Next thing anyone knew, Crowley was out. He just kept on going full steam in Paradigm Artisan mode. Sooner or later, he finished enough a good one to start cultivating disciples – and thus we have Thelema.

Unlike the Paradigm Artisans of the Golden Dawn, the disciples of Thelema started off using the Traditional approach (they were in Paradigm Applicator mode: applying the paradigm that Crowley gave them). Yet many of them most often tend to behave the same way that Mages of the Golden Dawn did to Crowley when they (Thelemites) encounter a Paradigm Artisan amongst them.

We have been talking about the Golden Dawn and Thelema, but this pattern and dynamic also applies to other paradigms established by (an) Artisan(s), whose diciples use them for working magick according to the Traditional Magick approach.


**********

I think what you call the "artisan" approach has always existed, since the beginning of time. Over the years as the "artisan" becomes applied it becomes traditional. While Spare was an "Artisan", due to continual practice a number of his ideas entered the "Application" stage and in some ways became "Traditional", in that they are revisited and duplicated. While Spare remains an "Artisan" the created system shifts from personally crafted to established through application by those who are not the "Artisan".

Exactly.

Your ability to use these excellent specific examples suggests to me that you really have comprehended what I have been pointing out here in general.

Spare was indeed a Paradigm Artisan. He designed and applied his paradigm. When others started learning it, and using it, for working magick as he taught it, they did so according to the Traditional approach as Paradigm Applications, applying Spare’s paradigm.

I guess I'm cool with the idea of a chaote as a Paradigm Artisan if that expression also applies to those who were artisans before "chaotes" as a term existed.

Yes – that is what I have been saying here. A Chaote is a Paradigm Artisan. A Chaote is both a Paradigm Designer and a Paradigm Applicator. A Chaote both designs a paradigm, and applies that paradigm so designed.

Mainly because I think that one can be a "chaote" and an Artisan but to be a Artisan one needn't necessarily be a chaote.

Okay – I disagree that an Paradigm Artisan need not necessarily be a Chaote. But there is a reason why I disagree with this. That reason is connected with why I say that Paradigm Artisans are Chaotes, and say that Chaotes are Paradigm Artisans (instead of saying what you said there).

Let me attempt to clarify that reason and connection.

To a Traditionalist – to one who uses the Traditional Magick approach – to one who is a Paradigm Applicator – to one who uses the Paradigm Applicator approach: the perspective and behavior of a Paradigm Artisan is Chaotic.

A Paradigm Artisan’s perspective and behavior is Chaotic to a Traditionalist because the Traditionalist does not comprehend what the Paradigm Artisan is talking about and doing. The Traditionalist just sees the Paradigm Artisan NOT doing what the Paradigm Artisan “should” be doing. When it comes to magick work, what “should” be done according to the Traditionalist is that the Paradigm Artisan “should” be working magick according to some paradigm that has been already been provided. i.e. applying magick according to what has already been taught; doing what others have traditionally done.

But here comes this upstart, this rebel, etc… who dares to not do it the way the venerable masters taught. Here comes this magick worker who is doing far out explorations – weird experiments – heresy of heresies!! re-writing explanations!! – and blasphemy of blasphemies!! Changing the rituals!! Here comes this magick worker who is babbling about something that does not line up with the old tomes. Here comes the magick worker who seems dangerous because of that – or, at the very least, who seems to be walking on dangerous thin ice.

And, because of all that, what this upstart, Paradigm Artisan shares not only seems to go against so-called “common sense”, but also seems to flat out make no sense.

Such behavior is Chaotic!
Thus, the perpetuator of such behavior is a Chaote.

However – the fact is that, as the old proverb proclaims, “There is Order in Chaos”.
The only thing that causes the Traditionalist not to see that Order is a lack of comprehension.

Those with less arthritic understanding, with more flexible minds, will be able to comprehend – and thus, to them, what the Paradigm Artisan presents is not Chaotic, but Ordered. They see that Order as Cosmic, instead of as Chaotic, because they comprehend it - whereas the Traditionalists see that Order as Chaotic, instead of as Cosmic, because they do not comprehend it.

Thus, all Paradigm Artisans are Chaotes - and all Chaotes are Paradigm Artisans.

I have become all for proudly claiming the term “Chaote”, and for unabashedly calling the Paradigm Artisan approach, “Chaos Magick” – in comparative disctinction to "Traditionalists" and "Traditional Magick" - because that exactly is how Paradigm Artistry will seem to those who do not comprehend. And there always will be those who not only do not comprehend, but who will not ever want to comprehend. They will be just fine continuing to use the Traditional Magick approach – and thus do what has been traditionally done: follow whatever paradigm that others gave them. For them, the monikers let them clearly know with whom they are dealing.

I also fully admit that I all for so claiming and calling, because – come on, admit it now – doesn’t the phrase “Chaos Magick” still sound cool as hell? (grins big) Even though I have not explained it through all these posts to be that fantasy-ficiton-like megalomaniacal motivating stuff -- the term still has some pizzaz, some zing. It still is a great hook for noobs. When clarified as I have been clarifying it in all these posts – when it comes time for them to dig in and eat the meat of the meal by learning what it is all really about – they will find that it encouragingly nourishes them to be Paradigm Artisans, Magickal Artisans, Mages who really do get to ‘do what thou wilt’ when it comes to blazing their respective pragmatic paths, and walking along it according to their respective ways.

All of them will not necessarily be cut out for being Chaotes. Just like all of us were not cut out for being Traditionalists. But some of them will have been hungering for something freeing, and challenging, and rewarding. Some of them will be ready to brave the frontiers of such magick work. And they will be needing people who can and will intelligently and positively encourage them to advance their magickal work according to this approach.

In the end, the term “Chaote” and “Chaos Magick” are just words. They are still rather new. But then, so is the phrase “Paradigm Artisan.” It is the meaning associated with those appellations that is most important.

And affirming that does NOT negate any of the other points regarding the playfully serious, and seriously playful, importance of their usage that I just made.

In my own opinion part of the initial stimulus of "chaos magic" was to place more emphasis on the Artisan approach which had been at a point of decline during the time period. It gave it an added emphasis but did not create the idea.

Yeah – I suspect that was the case, too.

The idea that I have been talking about here as (the) Chaos Magick (approach), Paradigm Artistry, etc… has been around, and has been done, for a long time.

What I have been endeavoring to do here is to point at it my take on it with some coherency. Revitalize some good terms. Invent a few more. And maybe rejuvenate for others what the real good stuff is to me, in a comprehensive way.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Mar 6 2006, 09:43 AM

I can see your points and, though I absolutely detest the word paradigm, will asceed to your observations. But let me clarify a few things from my rather rigid, Traditionalist stance. This little waltz that you've described has been playing itself over a vast period of time. Might we just say that every ground breaking steps are lead by 'chaotes' at their time of inception? It appears regularily with each generation. There were occult schools of thought that have been existing, changing and progressing for thousands of years. In Western Tradition this forward movement had stagnated awhile due to the present theocracy...but in some areas continued on. We are not necessarily privy to their existance because of the theocracy, when it became necessary to become 'secret'. But even this, during the Dark Ages, has been a repeated pattern. I cannot speak for the Eastern Traditions, though I suspect that they, too, had their form of stagnating theocracy. I guess what I am saying is that it appears that innovative thought begins with the label of chaote/chaos (as seen by the established Traditionalist) and then moves toward assimilation by that generation to become the Tradition in about 2 generations. (Joseph Campbel did a neat series about Myth that ties in with this cycle) Look at the Wiccan Movement. There was no 'Wicca' before 1950! Going on three generations later we have a 'Wiccan Tradition' which has been embraced by the global population at large. These 'Wiccans' were considered the chaotes of their time. I was there! The Golden Dawn was considered thus at its inception. Thelema was to go through this process also. Outside of magic this occurs in one form as "the generation gap". IMHO! Ah well.... maybe I'm missing the point...I blame it all on 'paradigm', that linguistic scourge of my generation gap.

Yes – exactly.
This dynamic has been playing out for a long, long time.

I am in no way suggesting that either I, or anyone else, who just recently using the terms “Chaote” and the phrase “Chaos Magick” (and variants), is doing anything radically new here with regard to that dynamic.

Yet, how I have been specifically explaining Chaotes and Chaos Magick might seem new to some - especially to those who still consider the entire point of Chaos Magick to be about "tapping into the awesome, primordial powers of Chaos! Bwahahahahaaaa!", or about a butterfly flapping wings in Florida and causing a tsunami in Japan, or about bringing down "The Establishment" merely to bring down "The Establishment", or whatever.

Might we just say that every ground breaking steps are lead by 'chaotes' at their time of inception?

Yes.

What you explained regarding Western Tradition, Eastern Tradition, Wicca, the Gold Dawn, and Thelema is indeed the dynamic that I have been pointing out. There were Chaotes (or Paradigm Aristans) that were designing, and applying, their paradigms at the inception of each of them.

So, even though your detest the term “paradigm,” you did not miss the point. You got the essential meaning of the dynamic (and, hopefully you also got the clear explanation that I connected with the term “paradigm”). And that is most important, regardless of what term is used.


**********

bym - and any of you other Traditionalists out there:

If the term paradigm really rubs your fur the wrong way - then, whenever you see me use it here, you could just substitute the term pathway.

Because in the end, to me, both of those words reference the same meaning.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Mar 6 2006, 09:16 AM

LOL! I followed your thought process and I agree with the ideas presented. The coining of new terms is always a breath of fresh air (regardless of how they may sound). My problem with the word paradigm stems from it suddenly being used by those who wished to impress for the sake of sophistry. It is a perfectly good word...I just happen to not care for it....a small neurosis, hopefully 'overlookable'. When I was young it was hardly (if ever ) used. *sigh* "...and the times, they are a-changin'...
Good dialogue, good thoughts..... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/i_triangle.gif)