The author missed the point almost entirely.

The whole idea of Chaos to chaos ma

gic is two-fold: first, it is not just a "formless void from which the cosmos ev
olved", but an inherent, underlying principle of reality, that everything in the
universe is subject to the chaos of randomness (and by using traditional occult
correspondence standards, if one thing is changed into another, it retains an i
nherent connection to it's previous state); second, it is precisely the apparent
philosophical and methodological contradictions the Chaos Magician seeks to tak
e advantage of, hence its name as such.
The author seems to confuse Chaos Magic with Discordianism, and while there is c
ertainly some overlap, the two philosophies are separate and distinct.
Chaos Magic was not unconnected with the fictional writings of the sword-and-sor
cery fantasy author Michael Moorcock (...) Certainly, there can be no doubt that
it seems to have been from here that the idea for the logo of the Chaosphere or
iginated.
I can think of no better source for a symbol of Chaos Magic, a system that claim
s to be able to evoke entities from Cthulu to Bugs Bunny!
There is also a tendency to use a shows word where a short one would do, and the
pretentious usage of Latin rather than 20th century English for no apparent rea
son.
The bulk of occult authors fall victim to this (or, at the very least, the succe
ssful/popular/well-known authors). I don't like it either, but this author is ni
t-picking.
Throughout mysticism, there have never been any absolutes: there is no ultimate
causality or truth, and the nature of "solid reality" has always been held to be
something in the manner of an illusion or a dream.
So, reality is a dream, there are no absolute truths, except this one is just pl
ain wrong? Seriously?
in order for it to work, an Act of Magick requires the performance of an Act of
Will, with the objective held firmly and unwaveringly in mind. If a result is no
t then forthcoming, it is not so much because of the (paradoxical) effect that a
n unpredictable, chaotic element is preset, as that either (a) he current concen
tration of one-pointedness was not strong enough to overcome local conditions, o
r that (b) the intention was not itself appropriate in terms of the evolution of
the universe, a sentient entity of a different and superior kind altogether to
homo sap.
Discounting (b), as Chaos Magic (to my understanding) usually disagrees with thi
s notion, the only difference between "a chaotic element countered the effect of
my Will" and "my Will was not enough" is philosophical at best and semantic at
worst.
All magickal acts are meaningless, or powerless, or both, unless done specifical
ly to to rectify a perceived imbalance within the universe:
It's like the author didn't even read about chaos magic at all, a system of prac
tical magic that does not concern itself with balance or purpose. This shows jus
t how dogmatically the author believes in Thelema, a system of belief that is, i
n my own opinion, usually quite respectable, except in cases such as these where
the author wields it like a philosophical club.
NOTE: Since this review was written, it appears that Peter Carroll has stepped d
own from his role as head of the I.O.T.
I'd be interested in knowing at least the relative dates of these two events. Ho
w much time passed between the review and Carroll stepping down? A week? A month
? A year, or longer? Even if it was a short time, why would the author believe t
hat the head of the IOT gives any shit what a Thelemite thinks of his writing?
permalinksavegive gold
[ ]FraterFive 3 points 1 year ago
This guy made the point better than I could.
Also I imagine this is old. I don't think Peter J's been running the IOT for a w
hile.
permalinksaveparentgive gold
[ ]mongreloctopus 4 points 1 year ago
I agree with you, and I am a Thelemite. The author has gone down the strawman pa

th in a big way...and then, of course, there's the blatant misunderstanding of t

hermodynamics and symbology.
It is always disturbing to see the flag of Thelema unfurled above dogmatic subse
rvience to any idea, but especially to those ideas predicated on self-importance
and ignorance.
permalinksaveparentgive gold
[ ]fr-IGEA 1 point 1 year ago
Very much agreed, brother. I could probably be described as a chaotic Thelemite
or a Thelemic chaotee, though these definitions are hardly of interest to anyone
(myself included). Believing otherwise seems like a horrible, yet quite usual t
rap.
permalinksaveparentgive gold
[ ]GreenSophia[S] 1 point 1 year ago
I'd be interested in knowing at least the relative dates of these two events. Ho
w much time passed between the review and Carroll stepping down? A week? A month
? A year, or longer? Even if it was a short time, why would the author believe t
hat the head of the IOT gives any shit what a Thelemite thinks of his writing?
Skoob Esoterica Anthology, Volume 1. The volume I own is from 1994 but it's poss
ible this article had been published somewhere previously. I was flipping throug
h it the other night and came across this pretty whimsical and bold indictment o
n Chaos Magick and Carroll. knew I had to post it here to get some opinions. I a
gree with what most have said here, it appears to have been written under a pret
ty thick dogma daze. But i found it stimulating one way or the other.