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?

Sexism is a topic that came up in a forum I recently started participating in. None contested that it was endemic in occulture, but few seemed interested in exploring why this was.

I know women who have been asked “who are you here with?” when they attended events. Several have had men try to “explain” technical points to them, unprompted. In my own experience, after choosing a stone to represent an element at a gathering, I overheard a man complain that I should not have been “allowed” to choose Fire.

The most common reaction reaction to the above was a dropped jaw and a private resolution to never attend such events again. And they don’t. Yet many (men, usually) seem bewildered by low attendance of women in their group/temple/lodges.

We have lost essential voices of dedicated magickians because they were treated poorly and edged out of the public sphere. They post profound things in friends-locked spaces on LiveJournal, are brilliant on IM, in private conversation  and other “safe” spaces where they won’t be shut down. Few publish books, and those that do stick to other “safe” topics like occult biography and history. 

How did we let this happen? What can be done about it?

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.

It should hardly seem surprising that something called “chaos magick” is constantly in flux, both in terms of what gets classed as chaos magick, and in who it attracts.

I was first introduced to the subject by some English bloke on IRC in a random Wicca chatroom who later, through a series of unlikely circumstances, became my husband. He introduced names I’d never heard of before: Austin Osman Spare, Peter J Carroll, Robert Anton Wilson – people with three names writing weird stuff.

It was refreshing. I was young, and apart from a few friends in high school, I didn’t know anyone else who was interested in magick. Until I found the chaotes, all I knew were religious Pagans who left me empty, or pedantic ceremonialists who bickered over trivia that seemed unnecessary.

From there I devoured everything I could find: Ray Sherwin, Phil Hine, Stephen Mace, Jan Fries, Steve Wilson, Ramsey Dukes, Jaq Hawkins, Hakim Bey, ye gods even Adrian Savage, simply because the word “chaos” was in the title. The books were difficult to find, expensive and experimental; the websites were raw and their authors approachable. Continue reading »

Sorry, no time.

Hallowe’en’s but a few short weeks away, and it’s supposed to be the time of the dead, when “the veils are thinnest ‘tween worlds”. Yet, outside obvious fiction, when was the last time you heard of a young ghost?

Recently I reviewed Claude Lecouteux’s The Return of the Dead for SpiralNature.com. In it, the author  delves into Germanic and Scandinavian folklore to discover their pre-Christian beliefs about death and the afterlife, focusing on ghosts and revenants in particular.

He was writing of a time when they were taken to be a very real phenomena, yet for the mainstream, this no longer holds. He writes:

In terms of evolution, having suffered the outrages of time and history, revenants have lost almost everything that distinguished them: their physicality and their powers. They no longer kill or threaten, nor do they perform domestic tasks. They are no longer the tutelary or wicked spirits of an earlier age. Ordinarily, they appear mute, using their eyes or gestures to express what they wish to say, but they no longer have the power to express themselves with words because they are no longer of this world.

Lecouteux attributes their decline to Continue reading »