Welcoming the Stranger

I had dinner with my mother and my family Sunday night. While there my mother's church came up. As a boy my mother instilled a sense of the importance of formal religion and religious community for me which I value, and which has been of great benefit to me through life, even though my preference for religious communities and formal religion differs greatly from hers. In fact it differs so much so at this point that I prefer not to go to her current church, less because of the style and more because of the community. It's very small. So when they share a sign of peace, literally everyone in the church greets everyone else. Many of them coming up and hugging each other. They're very excited about guests, and therefore have few boundaries in terms of asking about where you go to church and if you'll be back with them and such things. Not to comfortable for someone looking to stop in casually.

But for people looking for the support of a caring community, they can be a pretty good place.

While at dinner my mom told me about a man, I don't recall his name, who she and her fellow church members believe to be homeless. He stopped into the church about a week ago, and stayed to share in after church refreshments with them. He humbly asked for food, and they provided it, almost surprised that he felt the need to ask. While talking with him, he talked about how much he liked it there with them and how he wanted to study with them but he didn't have a Bible. So one of the church members offered him a Bible and asked what kind he wanted, and agreed to go get it for him. The following week as they were preparing for service the woman who was supposed to get the Bible was quite upset that, while helping someone else in the community, she had not had the opportunity to go get the Bible. They looked through what bibles the church had but they were all used, and they felt a used Bible wasn't an appropriate gift for the new friend they were welcoming. Eventually when they found a moment, one of them went out to a store to pick up a Bible of the type the man had requested. The man was overjoyed, and was clearly surprised that someone would say they would do something for him and actually follow through.

The story was simple, but was nice. Although it was a little sad that a small act of kindness was a surprise for him. We, unfortunately, live in a world where goodness and caring for others can often be a surprise.

My preference is not to get particularly political in this blog. I'm not sure neutrality is still possible, but I'm going to still shoot for it. That said, the idea of helping others and questions of who should be doing it, what limits there are on our call to help others, and how it should be done are major issues at the moment.

I can't answer for us as a society what we should or shouldn't do. But these questions are such that they often bring us back to questions of religion and spirituality. The Pope has expressed the view that Christians must welcome the stranger. 550 Catholics organized a Mass in front of the White House to support this idea. We find other religions also reaching out to help others in places where our society has not been able to provide food, water, shelter, or safety. In a lot of mainstream religious structures it's easy to say what we're called to do or not do because they expressly state what to do or not do.

But for magicians we don't have that. We have a whole host of spiritual and religious ideologies we might ascribe to, or might draw pieces from. By in large though we approach them in very individualistic ways, directly relating to the powers, forces, intelligences, and divinities that inspire us. For many of us, that inspiration is often very tied to our own personal development or to our particular magical work, and less towards a social concept.

With that in mind, maybe we each should turn to whatever spirits, or whatever source we draw from, and find inspiration as to what our answers are for ourselves. But if we do that we need to commit to working with that inspiration to make manifest in the world whatever it is we're called towards.

Short of that, here are some thoughts I have on the matter. They're my thoughts, and so of course no one is obligated to share or agree with them. But I hope they might give you a jumping off point to explore your own thoughts.

First, magic isn't simply about ourselves. I have previously tried to get a magical group to do more charity work. New leadership in that group is fortunately excited about the idea of how we as a community can help the broader community. But in the past some leaders were not as fond of the idea of helping others, because, magicians, particularly Thelemic magicians, work in a system focused on the self, and not the community. It may be true that many magicians work in a manner focused on themselves, but Thelema is not just about the self. The Aeon of Isis was one focused on a communal ideal. The Aeon of Osiris was focused on the individual. You have the circle which encompasses the whole, and the point which resides solely as itself; you have the cosmos and the singular star. The Aeon of Horus is the Aeon of War, in the sense that the polarized qualities of Isis and Osiris must come together to destroy their separateness and unify into a new synthesis. The Age of the Child partakes of the individual and the community. Thus the Hermit shines light into the world to inspire others. The Master gathers a temple, the Magus ensnares souls with his word. On the way to this unity, the Man of Earth explores the forces of the cosmos, the Lover understands his angel and therefore himself, and the Hermit combines the self and the cosmos into a singular work. Knowing our Wills involves working our Wills within the world, which is where Love comes in, we bring the world together by individually contributing to a collective environment that allows and inspires people towards their Wills. It is ultimately communal.

So...that's a lot of words, but what does it mean? Magic is about action in the world, and that action impacts others. Ideally our actions should help us and those we care about, but in a way in which we also repair the world and foster “magic” in the sense of moving the world into a more initiated state. Even when we work for ourselves there is a social element, an element of service, in magic.

So, my first thought is again, that magic is not simply about ourselves, magic is about impact on the world, and therefore the community around us.

My second thought is that the strong are called to help those weaker than themselves. When I was a boy I was taller and stronger than most of my peers. Now as a man I'm pretty average height. But I was almost my full grown height in elementary school. My parents instilled in me the idea that if you were bigger and stronger than others you couldn't use that to take advantage of weaker people, and you were obligated to protect those who couldn't protect themselves from people who are stronger than them.

Maybe I don't have a good magical justification for accepting this ideal, but is seems like one which to me is sensible. Maybe we don't have to be superheroes, although this seems in line with Jonathan Kent's morality or Ben Parker's with power comes responsibility. There are things we can't do. We aren't invulnerable or all powerful. But we do have access to knowledge and power that others do not. Sometimes it can allow us to provide them the help that they need. We might not be obligated to help, but in cases where we can, we have to recognize that we make the decision not to.

So my second thought is that if magicians have power that others do not, and we can within reason use that power to alleviate suffering, we make an active choice either to do so or not to do so, and we are responsible for that choice.

My third and final thought for today on this matter is “Compassion is the vice of kings.” When I was starting out in Thelema and the Thelemic community this line was often quoted as a call to be an edgy bad ass. “Stamp down the wretched and the weak,” clearly, we're not called to be compassionate, it's a vice. We should be focused on our OWN wills as individuals. This was the kind of sentiment I saw a lot. Maybe it wasn't the prevailing sentiment at the time, maybe it was. I liked to interpret it differently, and I'm finding now a lot more people have also come to this conclusion and have become more comfortable vocalizing it...the line is a call towards compassion.

“Vice of kings” can be re-rendered as “kingly vice”. While the word vice is of primarily negative meaning, Liber AL seems to creatively flip language on it's head at times. Love is clearly something necessary in the context of Liber AL. Compassion is a form of Love, and it is a form of love which is dangerous when given over to it too easily, too often, and too completely. In fact the Fraternity of Saturn attempted to clarify Love in the context of the Law of Thelema by adding “compassionless love” as a descriptor. But stars move in a coalescence of the gravity of the various stars, planets, and bodies of space. The universe sings in a harmony. The cosmos is in and of itself a form of compassion, or a coming together of things which share in influence and impact. Perhaps then compassion is not the vice of kings in the sense that true kings reject compassion, but rather that a true king masters compassion, experiencing it and drawing on it as is suited to his will, but like any other dangerous influence, no further than those bounds which are suited to his will. Compassion is his burden, because it allows for his magical interaction with the world, but taken too far could also topple it.

A successful king understands his kingdom and the people in it. He recognizes that his success, his growth, the longevity of his kingship is tied to the way in which he cultivates his kingdom and the experiences of those therein. Jupiter and Sol are the icons of kingship in western magic. Jupiter is the source of beneficence and providence. Kings provide mercy and fecundity for their children, those within their kingdom who are dependent upon their reign. Sol provides justice, balance, and through those healing, but also illumination and inspiration. Sol is the beauty of ordered virtue made radiant upon those around it. The relationship of a virtuous reign to fecundity and growth is seen in the physical counterpart of the force of Sol, our Sun and its ability to support life.

True kingship is not about looking down upon the wretched and despising them. Kingship is about balance, about ordering the forces within a kingdom, and fostering the flow of growth and prosperity.

So my third and final thought is that a magician, in order to be kingly, and take part in the power of a king must shoulder the burden of compassion.

So maybe as magicians, we aren't called to welcome the stranger, feed the poor, clothe the naked, and heal the sick...although...some of that sounds like it's precisely in line with what Rosicrucians are required to do...we are, in any case, in a position to consider what is right for us, and what our roles in society and the world are. Ultimately we can't individually decide for our neighbor or our country what the one true course of action is. But we can decide for ourselves what is and what isn't right for us to do, and from there we can decide whether or not we're going to do that thing which is right or not. In the end we are left with our feelings to answer to as to whether or not we've lived up to our inspiration.  

Dion Fortune, and the Wizard of Oz or, Don't be the man behind the Curtain

You, my friend, are a bad ass wizard.

You, do magic, and that's really cool, so you're cool.

You are a bright shining star of awesome.

Stuff like that is cool to hear, and empowering to believe. People like that empowered feeling. People like to know they are cool. You can get really fr recognizing what matters to someone and complimenting it because the desire for these good feelings is so powerful. This desire to feel cool is something which affects most people in some way. So for magicians and non-magicians it can be a means for us to be deceived or manipulated, either by others or by ourselves, We might not characterize it as a desire to be cool, but all of us have a way we want to be, and a way we want to be perceived. Having a firm understanding of that desire and it's juxtaposition to or alignment with our reality is paramount in avoiding being manipulated by or misled by people, or by ourselves, based upon how those desires make us feel.

If we know solidly who we are its harder to shake that up with a passing comment, and it's harder to distract us with flattery. It's also easier to succeed at what we want  when we understand fully what we want, what it means to have it, and where we are in relation to it.

Unfortunately, in magic, there is a lot of accepting empowering ideas even if they aren't real. I see frequently people who are open about their inexperience, or lack of practice, lack of success talk about themselves as magicians, mages, and witches. People who don't seem to do a lot of magic, or seem to only do magical exercises prop themselves up as magicians. I recently saw a blog post, which while the overall point was correct and was very important, a line several people quoted involved recognizing a whole group of people as powerful magicians, without asking, are the people in this group doing powerful magic, or are they just doing important work in magical communities.

You are a shining bright star of awesome, just by virtue of your creation, even if you're still working off the muck so that you can see the shine. But are you a bad ass magician who does cool magic? You have to ask and answer that question. Do you do magic? Have you created unquestionable, powerful, observable changes in the world using occult methods? I hope the answer is yes because magic is awesome. But if the answer is no, I hope answering no helps you find what you need to eventually turn the answer to yes, because you deserve that awesomeness in your life.

Don't get so busy being the wizard that you become the man behind the curtain.  The wizard of Oz couldn't beat his enemy, he couldn't get home, he couldn't connect with others because his life was about an image, not about reality. He sent essentially a band is misfits to stop his enemy, and this wasn't a Gandalf cleverly positioning people kind of move, he figured they'd fail and be out of his hair. He's not the wizard you want to be.

Magic is empowering because it gives you access to very real power. If the empowerment is based on a case of the feels you're just furthering your disembowelment. A lot of people go for the feels though, we've talked about reasons why before. The magical community tends to promote catching a feel though because it's easy, and it has been part of our formative literature since the late revival.

Dion Fortune took the reality shaping force of magic away by redefining it as a change in consciousness. Changes in consciousness are powerful and useful for magic, but they themselves are more the provenance of mysticism, yoga, and systems of meditation. They inform and become tools for magic but are not magic itself. Defining magic as changes in consciousness makes it easy for us to credit ourselves and others as being powerful magicians. It makes empowerment, catching a case of the feels, adjusting our worldview or self worth, or even just deepening our breathing or closing our eyes into powerful acts of magic because they all adjust our consciousness.

I would ask though, do you want to be the powerful magician who is empowered by his counterculture vibe? Or do you want to be the magician who is empowered by his ability to find treasure, heal the sick, and destroy enemy forces?

King, Gardner, Magician

Sometimes as we begin to develop magically we will find something changes in our lives. A lot of people talk about increases in synchronicity, but frequently, this is just a matter of training ourselves to look for synchronicity. Developing magically involves a process of unfolding through several forms of magical power or agency. Some of these we outgrow, and some of these we develop a more intimate connection to.

As we explore we learn to reach to the heights, connect with the Holy Guardian Angel, and wield the power, wisdom, and authority which come with this connection. As we become closer and closer to it our personal kingship develops into a more and more natural state.

A good king is one with his kingdom. As we develop towards mastery we must also stretch out our hands and apprehend the world around us. We draw its myriad pieces together within our apprehension and hold them to ourselves until they move fluidly with us.

Frequently I look at this as the blending of ceremonial magic and natural magic, or witchcraft. There are other ways this can manifest but this is one way to illustrate the relationship. The point we're looking at however is what happens as you begin to develop these aspects of your magic, along with your other sources of power.

Essentially, you will, rather than uncovering synchronicity, uncover moments of automatic magic, or moments where your magic functions like it's on autopilot.

What's the difference?

When things display synchronicity it's a cool feeling of serendipity and harmony where you note that various seemingly unrelated things seem to bare a similarity. Things you didn't know you needed, or things you will need just randomly show up before you even considered the need. It's a state of feeling blessed and taken cared for by the invisible hand of the universe. It isn't particularly magical though, there's no intention, no will, no agency.

Magic occurring automatically happens when you decide a specific goal or need. You plan a method for achieving it. You maybe even begin your preparations. But before you launch your attack your goal manifests, leaving you holding your wand in your hand asking “well, what do I do with this now?” In instances like these, there is a focused intention, a defined goal, and at the least a determination to accomplish it by magic.

In my experience I tend to find it frustrating as opposed to the nifty ooey gooey feeling synchronicity is associated with. I want to know I made shit happen when I do stuff. Sometimes it's pretty clear cut though. For instance, last week, I was driving to work and determined to feel comfortably on my way to meet my numbers for the quarter I needed to find someone to purchase a particular product for $300K and determined the most likely source for clients to have those funds. I decided I would conjure Sachiel that Thursday and outline what I was looking for in a client. Later that day, a coworker brought me in to a meeting with a client because he ended up with a client from my book coming in who I hadn't spoken with in a few years. He thought I could help the client with something I couldn't, but while talking with the client I uncovered that he had $300K he needed help with. So he agreed to meet with me, this Thursday, to go over the product I had determined I needed to present to someone. He's a perfect fit for it, it's the right thing for him.

So what should I do in this situation? Run with it. This is the result of being a good king, I get to decide what's going to grow in my garden, and when my plantings sprout it's my responsibility to tend to them. Stirring the pot, either by proper magic or by authority and connection dovetailing, requires that I work with what comes to boil. Getting it started and letting it go routinely is a good way to disconnect from apprehending your world and cutting off a piece of that power you've cultivated. Besides, it's what you wanted in the first place.

But again, it's a sprouting. Depending upon the nature of your goal, that initial little push might be enough to get it done. A bigger goal with more parts, or where more factors could impact it might need bolstering. In my case, workings to secure my business partner and I making our presentation right, or for success for myself and the client would be ways to cultivate what has started.

Again, part of the difference between synchronicity and magic. You got your goal started without much work, but as a magician you observe the situation, understand the goal, and do what you need to to make that first movement blossom into your chosen manifestation.

I'm with the alchemist

A couple days ago a friend of mine posted a link with the title “3 Ways to Become a 'Magician' by a 16^th Century Alchemist”. I was pretty intrigued as he's a pretty solid magician with experience in a lot of traditional stuff. On top of that, I am pretty into alchemy, so a pre-occult revival perspective on what it takes to be a magician from an alchemist seemed like the coolest thing someone could be linking to.

I clicked the link, and it was on Ultraculture. I was pretty puzzled because they seemed to be a popular chaos magic forum, and 16^th century alchemists definitely don't fit the bill there.

Well, on reading it, it became clear that the material was great, but the site was kind of punking it. They acknowledge that Giambattista della Porta was one of the best and most highly regarded magicians of his time, and they present his ideas, but it's within the article they refer to the magicians of the time as “one percenters” and reference the ideal described by della Porta as “magocracy” and refer to him as a “magocrat” and then point to historians looking at other views of magic at the time. So, they weren't directly mocking what he said, but they definitely present it in a context of derision. Even so, I thought there was value in della Porta's material.

I think that the elements of what makes a magician is something we over look a lot in magical culture. We talk about how to do magic. Sometimes good writers talk about philosophy and theory. Dime a dozen writers talk about ethical rules. But qualifications and character aren't things we look at. I think character is pretty important to consider, and there are definitely magical elements associated with character and power that can be derived from the substantive force of character. But Giambattista della Porta's take on things is about qualifications.

People avoid talking about qualifications because if we have them, then there are people who won't make the cut. Most people don't want to be the unpopular guy who cuts people from the team, but more so you don't want to be the guy who no one reads because you told them they don't make the cut. In the end though I think the big fear of qualifications is if we accept they exist maybe we won't make the cut.

I'd say, it's ok not to make the cut. Not everyone needs to be a magician. Not meeting someone's qualification as a magician doesn't preclude people from doing the occasional magic either. But, for people who want to solidly, truly, and thoroughly be a magician, some concept of what qualifies a person as such can be an inspiration or a guide for how to develop oneself.

In my own development there were a lot of ideas that people I respected imparted to me when I was a kid about what disciplines I needed to apprehend in order to truly be a magician. I took those to heart, and they helped guide me as I made choices about what to learn and do in life. Not meeting all those “qualifications” not having all the skills, and knowledge, doesn't necessarily kick us out of the magician club, but it can give us an idea of where to head.

So what were della Porta's criteria?

I'm not quoting, I'm just going to summarize.

1. A magician must be a natural philosopher (skilled in the natural sciences).

2. The magician must be a physician (skilled in physiology and chemistry)

3. The magician must be wealthy

When looking at these ideas we have to look at what the world was like at the time. The first two items are basically just presuming that the individual is educated. Specialized education is pretty modern. When della Porta was writing an educated man would automatically be educated in these topics. Engaging in magic and alchemy was similarly something that would not have been atypical for those of the leisure classes. These activities were viewed as an extension of science, an additional way to explore the world more deeply and gain knowledge that was beyond the science of the times.

Magic today fits into a different place in our culture. We have a wider array of subjects to learn and understand. Knowledge is more specialized because there is simply so much more of it. Science probes so much more deeply and has told us so much more about our world, our bodies, and our universe. So magic gets lumped in with religion, in a time where both are relegated more and more to niche parts of the populace. So if magic is not simply the crown of a liberal arts education do these criteria still make sense?

Well, regarding the natural sciences, if we look at Agrippa, and the grimoires, and the old alchemical manuscripts it is absolutely necessary that the magician have some knowledge of astronomy, chemistry, and physics. The magician does not need to be a doctor of such things, or even educated to the point of a bachelors degree in those subjects. That said, a magician will be well served by having at least a high school or undergraduate survey level of education in these disciplines.

Physiology is likely of less importance, but could have value. Beyond physiology a physick of the time would have been educated in herbalism, and rudimentary chemical processes associated with alchemy. Della Porta specifically cites humorism as part of the knowledge a physician would have had. Hermetic science, while it embraced the alchemical philosophies which advanced both alchemy and medicine beyond humorism, elements of humorism still are important to many parts of magic.

Clearly we don't need to all go out an become doctors, but looking at what was meant by the assertion is still useful. I'm not into herbalism, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone need to be unless they really want to commit to thoroughly being educated in it. Still, a magician needs a little rudimentary knowledge of herbalism. Knowing correspondences, knowing what different parts of an herb relate to, knowing how to extract essences, and make tinctures, all of these are part of developing a magical practice. Humorism is important in understanding the processes of manifestation, alchemy, initiation, and hermetic healing.

So for the first two ideas, I would assert that, yeah, definitely, these disciplines, understood in a modern context, are necessary for developing as a magician. Philosophy (including politics, rhetoric, ontology/metaphysics, and ethics), history, and theology would likely have also been part of the education della Porta would have assumed. What we now call psychology wouldn't have quite existed, but its roots would have existed in philosophy and medicine. I think being a complete and successful magician still includes education in these subjects. In fact these subjects may be more obviously necessary for the magician.

Magicians need to understand various cultures, mythologies, and symbols which are often understood through the study of history. Understanding politics and rhetoric helps us with understanding how to think and how to structure and understand ideas. This is important because we deal with a lot of really bizarre concepts and experiences which have to be squared against the observable world. Magic itself is the application of an understanding of the fundamental nature and structure of the universe and the self, and so ontology and metaphysics are absolutely necessary for the magician. I'm not into chaos magic which is often associated with tying psychology to magic, but, before chaos magic, Regardie, Fortune, and even Crowley incorporated a lot of psychology into magic. Magic, again, deals with a lot of bizarre experiences. Understanding how our minds work, how symbols work within the mind, how ritual and various experiences affect us, and how all of these dynamics come into play with how we approach the world and the people around us is necessary to surviving as a magician. As to theology, this might be more controversial, but I think the controversial element of asserting that we have a grounding in theology and theological discourse proves the need for that grounding. There are a lot of ways to understand the divine and divinity, most more advanced magic requires some approach to divinity. That isn't the same as saying it requires believing in a guy up in the sky. The theological elements of magic are much more nuanced and complicated and the relationship between theism and atheism gets very very skewed in a magical context.

Outside of a practical sense, the role of the magician also implies the need for these disciplines. The magician has access to knowledge, power, and insight that others do not. He needs the mental basis to interpret and apply this. He also needs the ability to relate it to the world and communicate it in a way which makes him useful to those around him. Whether we interpret magicians as leaders, or advisers, as gurus or prophets or hermits, the magician is intended to improve the world. That's what the Great Work is. Yeah you have to transmute yourself and reveal your inner awesome, but you contribute to the over all transmutation of the world too, and frequently that's done by impacting other people in the world. These disciplines are necessary to being that person who can encapsulate and communicate that inspiration from beyond.

Nothing about this makes magic unattainable or suggests that magic is a “one percent” activity. Anyone with access to a library, or anyone with intelligence who is paying attention to their high school education can reasonably have a very basic grounding in these subjects. More commonly though this well rounded set of academic disciplines can be attained by meeting the general education requirements of education at most universities. Not really a daunting task.

Now, the part that's easy to say doesn't fit is the having wealth part. Now, Jason Miller, and Rufus Opus have written a lot of great things about how the modern aversion to money associated with magic and spiritual disciplines is a potentially damaging concept. A lot of great magicians these days have put out a lot of great material around prosperity work. There is a clear attachment to Jupiter, and work relating to the sphere of Jupiter amongst many of the leading magicians today. Part of the idea seems to be that if someone gets their finances straight first they'll feel good about their ability to be successful with magic, and in addition to that they'll reduce some of the basic life stresses that distract us from engaging in magic.

I think during della Porta's time there probably was a bit of elitism to this idea, but practically speaking, a poor tradesman would not have had time for a lot of the things that della Porta and his compatriots were doing. So in that vein the logic is similar. Further their experiments involved a lot of stuff. Much of it was expensive, some of it needed to be made by or procured from particular sorts of people. More traditional ceremonial magic today has the same issue. Classical magicians also sometimes needed to employ aids for their work. This part isn't as necessary today. It remains though, having a stable financial basis puts you in a better state for the work, and also affords you the resources needed to obtain materials needed for the work.

So no you don't need to be rich. I won't even say you have to be financially stable, although a ton of people like to repeat “you have to have your Malkhut in order first,” but I will say that it'll be a lot better if you are stable.

Now I think there are other things that go into being a magician, mostly, the magic parts. I also think the discussion of the character of the magician is another important discussion. But all in all, I think the ideas that Ultraculture reported as being proposed by della Porta are pretty useful when examined for what they mean today. It's not some archaic curiosity. It's not some dated elitist sentiment. It's not a look at how magicians of the past equated to the maligned wealthy people of today. Della Porta's ideas are useful, and really still describe a concept of what qualifies someone as a magician which is still relevant for today.