From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 20:30:15 MDT
THE MAGUS by Peter Carroll ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a master of magic the Adept has some abilty to change himself
and the reality which surrounds him at will. The mark ofa Magus
however is that he is able to show other people how to change
themselves into whatever they desire through the discipline of
magic. There are two main types of genuine Magus, the
Apotheosis Magus and the Nemesis Magus. Additionally there is
the Hierophant or pseudo-magus. Each is recognizable by the
debris left in his wake. The Apotheosis Magus, sometimes known
as the Harlequin, is typically a master of internal disguise and
often external disguise also. Frequently a person of fallstaffian
tastes and grand gestures, he often distinguishes himself in a
variety of human endeavors precisely because he has attained the
freedom to be anything at all. Such freedom is often won only
after a tremendous personal struggle to repair the effects of a
difficult start in life. The Apotheosis Magus teaches by
encouraging emulation and then often finally capping it with
outrage. His play, which is often never consciously formulated, is
to provide a role model for emulation by his accoltes and perhaps
later to drive them away and throw them back on their own
resources, the horizons of which have been expended by the
encounter. The essential trick of the Apotheosis Magus is to
present magic as a source of boundless self confidence. If he can
convince his accolytes that they are magicians capable of anything
such beliefs will tend to become self fullfilling. The Apotheosis
Magus implies this through the triumph of the will. The Nemesis
Magus implies it by showing that nothing is true. Both aim to set
the imagination free. Both are exponents of a short and dangerous
path which is inevitably strewn with casualities and
misunderstandings. Yet this is considered to be a small price to
pay if a few do win through to a more effective self definition.
The continual setbacks, reverses and dry periods to which the
magical tradition is habitually prone are due to the frequent
appearance of the Hierophant or pseudo-magus figure. The
Hierophant always presents himself as an exponent representative
of something greater than himself. Out of the multiple of roles,
identities and behaviors that a person might adopt, the Hierophant
presents a single model as an ideal. This is particularly convenient
for the Hierophant as he need not be a perfect example of his own
ideal although he must at least make a show of trying in public.
Additionally, as it is he who defines the ideal, it is comparatively
easy for him always to appear one step closer to it than his
accolytes. Of course most Hierophants are merely religious
teachers who rarely venture into esoterics because of the
potentially immense costs of public failure. Yet there remains a
depressingly long roll call of dishonor for occult Hierophants or
psuedo-magi. The Hierophant inevitably teaches a system of
magic that he has either assembled from pieces or inherited. The
most enduring systems are those which are highly complicated,
and of low magical effectiveness. They should furthermore be
surrounded with hosts of petty exhortations. Aleister Crowley
dabbled in the Hierophant mode but was a supreme exponent of
the Apotheosis Magus role. Nobody of any potential adhered to
him for long but many were ejected to find their own path.
Crowley's writings are liberally salted with deliberate invitations
to emulation and hero worship and as equally peppered with
devices designed to repel. However their effect has never been
quite as reliable as the presence of the magus himself was. The
Apotheosis path is lonely, difficult and dangerous. Such a magus
must be all things to all men and women. As a matter of policy he
may be continually engaged in challenging the limits of what is
socially acceptable. He may have to resort to trickery to make
himself seem large enough to accomodate the totality of his
followers' expectations of him. Any true friendship prevents him
exercising his life's function towards any person with whom it is
shared and there will be few of his peers with whom he can be
completely open. He will get few thanks from society in general
for his efforts and perhaps only a grudging respect from those
whom he touches. The tangible rewards of this role are limited to
those he can extract form his temporary followers. The
Apotheosis Magus must be continually alert to avoid the backlash
from his own lifestyle and those who have associated with him.
He must always be one step ahead of the police raid. He often
comes to a bad end. Notable magi operating in this mode include
Cagliostro, Giordano Bruno, Paracelsus, and Gudjieff. The
Nemesis Magus is a rare figure in the generally positive esoteric
climate of the west. In the east the role is more common. The
historical Buddha with his rules and restrictions to provide
accolytes with a slightly new identity to adhere to. Rules
concerning clothing, sex, and diet are particularly effective. Such
systems are indispensible to the Hierophant in his ceaseless quest
for followers. The complexities of his systems guarantees
protracted tuition and its comparative magical ineffectiveness
ensures that few will be tempted to go freelance. Such systems are
designed to create dependency. New accolytes are always
welcome in such systems no matter how long their potential; for,
in the absence of measurable progress mere numbers at least
provide some positive confirmation. Heresy and Schism always
threaten the Hierophant's position and system. Unrealistic ideals
and ineffectual means of attaining them will always attract
criticism and attempts at revisionism. Yet if these can be avoided
the Hierophant can look forward to extensive rewards from his
followers, the lucritive commercialisation of his system, and
maybe postumous deification for what it's worth. Hierophantic
magi frequently inherit the systems of the predecessors. The
Apotheosis Magus and the Nemesis Magus rarely have direct
successors, although Hierophants frequently appear on the scene
afterwards and reduce their works to a system. Pseudo magi
outnumber the real thing by a large margin. It would be unseemly
to mention any living examples for whilst there is life there is
hope of change; however, Blatavsky, MacGregor Mathers, Dion
Fortune, and Franz Bardon provide examples of past occult
Hierophants. A single test serves to separate the true Magus from
the Hierophant. The false magus is never able to give a simple
meaningful explanation of what his teachings are supposed to do.
His justifications are invariably verbose and tautological
concatenations of indefinable terms. A host of petty Hierophants
feast upon the debris of Crowley's work without managing to
enlarge themselves or their followers. Austin Spare's works
however have been largely resistant to sytematisation and slavish
adherence for he left little that could be made into dogma. Yet
Crowley and Spare between them exemplify the paradox facing
the genuine magus. Speak and be misunderstood or keep silent
and be ignored. Most, it appears, have chosen to speak knowing
that the tricks of the Hierophant are an indispensible medium but
that these tricks ultimately obscure the message itself. The hope is
to blow some minds in the meantime. Either The Apotheosis of
the Self Or The Nemisis of the Self Will set the Kia soaring But
promulgation begets systematisation And the Apotheosis Of
Somebody Elses Self Is for suckers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:50 MDT