You've probably already subscribed to our RSS feed, followed us on Twitter, and joined our Facebook page. (You're so Web 2.0!)
But have you checked out our new Esoteric Book Club? First pick is Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology. Participate here!

This is a subject I’ve been frustrated by for some time now, and I’d like to air my thoughts and see what you think about it.

The basic gender assignment which are still frequently in use today date back to the 5th century BCE.  The fragmentary writings that survive from Empedocles, among other things, establish the four roots (later elements) as Earth, Air, Fire and Water, and that further, these are associated with specific gods: Hera, Zeus, Hades, and Nestis (Persephone).

These associations had complex geographical and mythical attributes which are rarely (if ever) taken into consideration. They don’t specify mystic sexual or gender-based properties inherent in the elements themselves, but rather describe mystic attributes relevant to these specific divine couples.

Taken out of context, the elements often get (mis)classed as: Earth/female, Air/male, Fire/male, Water/female. This tradition has become entrenched in modern occultism, and it is patently absurd.

If we take a surface reading of gender stereotypes as presented, they make little sense. Is the person the fiery temper represented by nurturing Earth or deep water simply because she’s female? Must  the practical labourer who’s held the same job for so many decades be viewed as intellectual air or fiery inspiration, simply because he has a penis? It simply doesn’t hold up, and perhaps it never really has.

We can still make use of the elemental associations in light of what they represent, for example:

• Earth – fertile, steadfast, practical
• Air – intellectual, remote, changeable
• Fire – passion, inspiration, transformation
• Water – emotional, nurturing, hidden

and various esoteric attributes, but we need not pretend these associations must be attributed to binary gender conventions.

Objects are no more imbued with mystical power than abstract concepts. The sword or wand ought not represent “male energy” (whatever that is) due to a faint phallic resemblances; there are no physical resemblances between a chalice or pentacle that suggest “femininity”. There are more relevant – and more potent – concerns inherent in the symbolism without forcing genders upon them.

Do we lose anything by dropping these arbitrary gender distinctions? What do we gain?

Bought Crowley books that is.

An order came in today bearing a few of the books that are still in print that I didn’t already have. Including: Diary of a Drug Fiend (pictured right), White Stains, and the Sutin biography, Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley.

From the out of print market I also picked up The Revival of Magick and Other Essays (Oriflamme).

It’s great to see that Moonchild is in print again, even if it is a limited edition (I’ve already pre-ordered a copy), but with so many titles going out of print, I feel like I have to rush to fill the gaps in my library while I still can.

Whatever polarization there is amongst readers of Crowley, we’re not “beyond the books” (there is no such thing). This OOP situation needs to be rectified. I still can’t find a decently priced copy of Confessions.

Also, thanks to Joseph Thiebes who, on Plutonica.net’s Facebook page, let us know that Buying Crowley Books isn’t just a Facebook group and a Twitter account – it’s also a blog! Complete with an “Anti-Boycott” manifesto.

Final point, unrelated to Crowley (for now), but still on a bookish theme: the Esoteric Book Club is up and running. Check in and let us know where you’re at.

I posted earlier about attending L’Heure Noir, a series of workshops with Andrieh Vitimus followed by a masquerade. The workshops were a lot of fun, as was the masquerade, but at one point a masked man came up to Andrieh, a little nervously, and said the book was “ok”, but it was “nothing new”. This annoyed me.

I felt it was rude, and responded in kind before electing to remove myself from the conversation. The man quite obviously wanted to speak with Andrieh, and I hadn’t even read the book. It clearly wasn’t my place to argue. I stepped out.

At the time I took it for impolite, but now, having read more of Hands-On Chaos Magic, it also entirely overlooks the purpose for which it was written. Indeed, in the first paragraph of the first chapter Andrieh acknowledges that what’s in here isn’t necessarily unique– that’s not why he wrote the book. Complaining that there’s “nothing new” is misguided for (at least) two reasons.

Point the First: It’s all old hat

Human beings Continue reading »

I travel in a variety of occult circles (so to speak), and whenever the subject of Aleister Crowley comes up an immediate polarity tends to assert itself with fervent disciples on one side and frothing opponents on the other; few seem ambivalent or reasonably critical of his works. Continue reading »

Most people become interested in magick because they want to change some aspect of their lives, want to gain a greater sense of control in the world around them. Most people don’t seem to succeed.

It’s all well and good to be a juggernaut on the astral plane, defending the world from various nasties and sharing astral juice with your fellow warriors after a good night’s work, but seriously.

Objective results are the proof of magic, all else is mysticism.

–Peter Carroll, Liber Kaos

Continue reading »