Taylor Ellwood is the author of Pop Culture Magick, Space/Time Magic, Inner Alchemy, Multi-Media Magic and Kink Magic (co-written with Lupa). Taylor is also the managing non-fiction editor for Immanion Press and a Teacher of experimental magic at the Growing Edge Institute. For more information about Taylor, please visit The Green Wolf or Magical Experiments
The Evolution of Magic
When I get the occasional interview from a podcast or magazine, one misperception I often need to correct is the association people make with my work and chaos magic. I suppose because chaos magic used to be the latest current of magic and one that seemingly represented avant garde magic, people find it easier to lump my work into chaos magic. Admittedly, at one time I briefly identified as a chaote, but in the last five or so years, I came to recognize that Chaos Magic wasn’t quite the apt descriptor of what I do. While some of the practices I utilize are derived from Chaos Magic, I also draw much more extensively on Ceremonial and Hermetic practices as well as Far Eastern techniques. Even more importantly, much of my magical practice is now derived from disciplines that have little if any overt connection to magic, such as semiotics, literacy, linguistics, social practice, cultural studies, psychology, neuroscience, and physics.
While it is somewhat fashionable in certain Chaos Magic circles to utilize physics (Peter Carroll comes to mind) in magical practice, for the most part these other disciplines haven’t really been integrated into magical practices, beyond the occasional magical alphabet that springs up. Patrick Dunn, Wes Unruh, Edward Wilson, and to a lesser extent Bill Whitcomb have written about semiotics, memetics, and magic. Phil Farber has written a work about blending NLP, neuroscience, and magic together. Then there is my own writing, which has also focused on blending non-occult disciplines into occult practices. Beyond that there isn’t much literature that shows how to integrate practices from other disciplines into magical work.
Some might argue that drawing on disciplines outside of traditional occultism is not relevant to what they do. They could even be right, but I think such an attitude signals something of the stagnation I’ve long felt is part of the occulture. For all that we might view ourselves as a radical counter-culture (with the associated meaning of experiments and progress), the question that I find myself asking is, “What is the relevance of counter culture to magical practices?” The answer is that any relevance is arbitrary. The counter culture status of occultism is really just a cherished image some hold on to show how cool and radical they are. However such an image doesn’t guarantee any real progress in occult thinking or experimentation and this is fairly evident by the lack of genuine progress in the occult literature we have available to us. The majority of books currently published are mostly focused on rehashing what has already been written. We see this in the profusion of 101 books that range from Wicca to Ceremonial Magic to energy work, to Neoshamanism to Chaos Magic. Where is the innovation, experimentation, or evolution of magic in merely rehashing what has already been written? For that matter where is the experimentation in replicating what someone else has done?
I usually identify my approach to magic as Experimental Magic. My approach doesn’t draw on Chaos Magic beyond particular sigil and entity techniques (and even those have been modified extensively), and the use of paradigmal piracy in my pop culture workings. I don’t perceive my blending of non-occult disciplines as paradigmal piracy, because a lot more is involved than just swapping different religious beliefs for each day of the week. Experimental Magic is the rigorous creation and application of new and modernized systems of magic that also utilize principles and practices from other disciplines. The experimentation aspect arises out of the creation of new systems of magical practice, with little being derived from traditional occult correspondences and practices beyond the bare bones of techniques which can be adapted to these new systems. Instead of relying on traditional deities, rituals, or meditations, the magician seeks to create new practices based on concepts from multi-media, semiotics, linguistics, neuroscience, and other disciplines. The magician then tests these new practices to determine if they can work or if they need refinement.
In chaos magic, the focus is primarily on obtaining results, and it is sometimes argued that we don’t need to know how magic works, so long as it does work. In experimental magic the emphasis is not on obtaining results. Instead the focus is on developing, understanding, and refining the process by which a result occurs. Results are considered to be signs which indicate if you are going in the right direction or if you need to go back to the drawing board.
Experimental Magic is the next step in the evolution of magic. The focus has moved away from ceremony and ritual, and from an open-handed approach to magical practice and instead focuses on looking at how magical practice can be defined and refined as a process. However spirituality and working with deities and demons is not left out of that equation, nor are the practices of the past denied. Working with deities and demons and spirituality in general is an influence that is readily acknowledged in experimental magic, as opposed to being written off as a psychological phenomenon as occurs in chaos magic. The traditions and practices of the past are acknowledged as influences that can help refine the process by how magic is worked. Indeed, sometimes the most innovative practice of magic is found by experimenting with what others did and improving upon it. But just as importantly, experimental magic emphasizes using the techniques derived in other disciplines as a way of further refining and understanding how magic works.
For magic to continue to be a viable discipline, it must continue to evolve with the times and situations that inform its use. It must also continue to evolve as the other disciplines in the humanities, arts, and sciences continue to evolve. The practice of magic should not be static, because magic is not a religious practice, even if it is sometimes affiliated with religions (Religions can change, but they tend to change much more slowly due to dogma). Indeed, when practitioners find themselves relying overly much on how magic was defined in the past, they should be wary of such reliance, for it signals a dogmatic adherence to the past, and can lead to less questioning and experimentation.
The Experimental Magician does not believe in the efficacy of dogma. Even when a magical process seems to have been refined as far as it can be taken, we are still left with the questions, “How could I experiment with this process further?”, and “Is there another method I can use to obtain this result?” For the Experimental Magician, the question is the answer, because the question generates the demand to experiment, to test, and to refine how magic is worked. The evolution of magic stops when there are no more questions to be asked, and no more answers to be found.
Experimental Magic, as a current all its own, is concerned ultimately with how to evolve the practice of magic through fostering a better understanding of how magic works as well as how the processes of magic can be melded with the contemporary practices of other disciplines. As such, I would like to announce the formation of the Guild of Experimental Magicians, which is focused primarily on defining and experimenting with the processes of magic. Interested parties should contact me at taylor@spiralnature.com for more information.
Comments
Erm…Isn’t all Magick experimental?
What makes you assume all magic is experimental? When people merely repeat what others have done, is that magic experimental? Experimentation only comes about when people can innovate instead of merely replicating. In this particular case, the point is really about recognizing that for magical culture to evolve it needs to draw on other disciplines and perspectives outside what is usually studied.
In response to Taylor Ellwood.
I would say that in order to practice magick at all one has to innovate. Sure, you can replicate, but even in so doing the occultist must experiment with various techniques to find out what works for him/her in order to get into the appropriate frame of mind. You’re talking about magick as if it was an exact science.
“The counter culture status of occultism is really just a cherished image some hold on to show how cool and radical they are.”
Really? To write books with various buzzwords like Kink, Space/Time, Multi-media and Wealth before the word magic(k) is an attempt to show how cool and radical you are, when in reality one can learn and get to grips with a number of basic and sound techniques that work for the individual, and then adapt them from there.
Perhaps judging a book by it’s cover, literally, says little about what’s inside, because oftentimes the cover and it’s title are not chosen by the author but by the publisher, in order to make the book more attractive and catchy as a sales item.
Those buzzwords could very well be hooks, chosen by the publisher, to sell the book. What’s inside the book is where the substance lies, and Taylor’s books are anything but trying to be cool and radical just for the sake of it. They are intelligent and thoughtful as well as innovative.
Perhaps magic is not a religion where one has to rely on long standing and never changing ritual. Perhaps magic has the capacity to evolve with the ebb and flow of one’s own consciousness and if that is the case, perhaps Taylor is sharing his experience of this with us. I, for one, am grateful.
Well, to be honest I haven’t read any of Taylor’s books, but I have read many of his articles and listened to a lot of his podcast interviews, and to be honest, I think he is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. In fact, here is a fine title for his next book: ‘Lowest Common Denominator Magic’.
If the publishers are choosing the titles of his books then surely he can go tell the publishers to go fuck themselves… or is the money more important to him than standing for something that, in my mind, is a pure, noble and worthy pursuit?
Kink Magic? C’mon. Salt with your sex and pepper with your perversions as far as I can interpret the concept. By all means wear a gimp mask – who am I to judge? But how does the essence of the matter really differ from the fundamentals of Sex Magick or any other form of Magick for that matter?
New Age book shops are filled with such titles, and all they do is cheapen the subject. There is no innovation here. Taylor is talking about the same stuff as has been talked about many times before, only packaging it in a way that might encourage people to buy his books.
I’d have to say I can see both sides of the argument here. While such ideas as ‘Pop Culture Magic’ seem to me as pointless and oxymoronic as ‘Corporate Anarchy’, that doesn’t mean it can’t work for some people. Magic does evolve over time and to a greater or lesser extent has always drawn on the cultures that surround it. To a degree Taylor is simply doing what magicians in all ages have done.
What sticks in the craw these days, and I guess this is at the root of Mortimer’s distaste, is the gleeful appropriation by ‘experimental magicians’ of the trappings of throw-away culture. I don’t care what anyone says, I’ll pick an Archangel over a Marvel Comic superhero any day of the week. Magick is an effective insulator against the vagaries of petty human distraction: reality TV, fashion, celebrity worship, gossip magazines. But then insulation can end up as isolation. It’s a balancing act, but I don’t personally see any worth (for me) in getting Batman to do a job that would be better effected by Andromalius.
The sad thing is that if people only read up on the Taylor Ellwoods of this world without looking at the tradition as a great and noble human endeavour spanning millennia, they may miss out on something infinitely more profound and transformative.
Having said that, there is a real need to keep up with developments in social science, neuroscience, physics and biology that inform the way we look at brain function and ultimately how we interact with the wider universe.
Everyone’s got a different take on magic, but the effective individuals are pretty easy to spot by their success in their chosen field. It’s a case of ‘by their fruits shall they be known’.
Sorry, but I think I’m about to vomit.
“The Guild Of The Experimental Magicians.”
Urgh! Puh-lease! Enough already. Sounds like Taylor plays too much World Of Warcraft.
Taylor writes: “Experimental Magic is the next step in the evolution of magic.”
So what exactly were all those magicians of the past doing if not experimenting?
Gerald Suster once said that “New Age is merely softened down and tarted up Christianity”. I say that Taylor Ellwood’s ‘Experimental Magic’ is just softened down and tarted up Chaos Magic – without a fraction of the inspiration – packaged to look nice on the coffee tables of jaded middle-class housewives. Quite frankly, I’ve never read an article with so many words that says absolutely nothing whatsoever.
But hey, that’s just my opinion on a subject I feel passionately about defending from being turned into a laughing stock by a bunch of profiteers and airy-fairy wannabe pioneers, whose only risk taking involves writing articles in the hope that no-one will find them out as being complete frauds.
Mortimer,
sounds like you have a real chip on your shoulder in regards to me. You argue that to practice magic is to innovate. Please tell that to all the people who are trying emulate Crowley. I think they haven’t heard that yet.
you acknowledge you haven’t read my books, so I find your criticisms in regards to my own approaches to be rather laughable. You argue I’m trying to apply to the lowest common denominator, when in fact my audience is primarily people who have been practicing magic for a while and are interested in integrating contemporary disciplines into their magical practice. Not exactly the lowest common denominator. As for the titles of my books, I chose those titles. I prefer to be straight to the point. I’m not doing it to be cool or appeal to the lowest common denominator. The titles speak to what the subject of the book is about. To me what would be pretentious is trying to come up with some esoteric sounding title to show how counter culture I am. I don’t need to do that (though I note you have).
the fact is, I am trying to sell books. And I am writing about something I enjoy doing. I am not however repackaging anything. My writing is about innovation and experimentation within magic. It’s certainly not like the majority of 101 books published by the bigger publishers.
You label me a complete fraud, and so I’ll return the favor label you an ignorant fool that displays the all to typical elitist counter culture attitude of trying to be cool by showing your disdain for anything that threatens your limited tunnel vision.
Wow. An entire month and a half to dream up a half-arsed response to my comments. I hope I don’t have to wait another month and a half to get your follow-up. Not that it’d be any more worth reading than the drivel mentioned above.
In response to your comments. Yes, you are correct, I have a serious chip on my shoulder with regards to you and everything you stand for.
To put it simply, I think you are a goddamned fraud with absolutely nothing to offer.
Yes, I fully acknowledge I haven’t read your books. Why on earth would I want to? If your articles are the market for your work, then there is nothing there that interests me whatsoever. Every article I have read of yours to date has merely spouted out the same old New Age wishy-washy horse-shit that bored me twenty-odd years ago.
What you don’t seem to understand is that if people emulated the work of Crowley (like the kind that you criticise), then they might actually get some results instead of jumping on the easy train that you and a million other profiteers have set up for your own financial benefit.
So your audience is “primarily people who have been practicing magic for a while and are interested in integrating contemporary disciplines into their magical practice”.
Oh stop it, silly boy, enough already.
You actually chose those titles for your books?! Christ, you’re off your fucking head. You’re certainly straight to the point. The titles suggest, to any serious student of occultism, that they should be avoided at all costs.
“The titles speak to what the subject of the book is about.”
‘Kink Magic: Sex Magic Beyond Vanilla’
No, I think you’ll find that the pretense is right there in your title, and anyone with half an ounce of goddamned fucking sense will see that. However, do feel free to criticise my own titles despite the fact they do what they say on the tin.
‘The Probationer’s Handbook’ – oh, that’ll be a handbook for probationers then.
‘The Key Of It All’ – oh, might that be a key that explains it all?
Wow. An entire month and a half to dream up a half-arsed response to my comments. I hope I don’t have to wait another month and a half to get your follow-up. Not that it’d be any more worth reading than the drivel mentioned above.
In response to your comments. Yes, you are correct, I have a serious chip on my shoulder with regards to you and everything you stand for.
To put it simply, I think you are a goddamned fraud with absolutely nothing to offer.
Yes, I fully acknowledge I haven’t read your books. Why on earth would I want to? If your articles are the market for your work, then there is nothing there that interests me whatsoever. Every article I have read of yours to date has merely spouted out the same old New Age wishy-washy horse-shit that bored me twenty-odd years ago.
What you don’t seem to understand is that if people emulated the work of Crowley (like the kind that you criticise), then they might actually get some results instead of jumping on the easy train that you and a million other profiteers have set up for your own financial benefit.
So your audience is “primarily people who have been practicing magic for a while and are interested in integrating contemporary disciplines into their magical practice”.
Oh stop it, silly boy, enough already.
You actually chose those titles for your books?! Christ, you’re off your fucking head. You’re certainly straight to the point. The titles suggest, to any serious student of occultism, that they should be avoided at all costs.
“The titles speak to what the subject of the book is about.”
‘Kink Magic: Sex Magic Beyond Vanilla’
No, I think you’ll find that the pretense is right there in your title, and anyone with half an ounce of goddamned fucking sense will see that. However, do feel free to criticise my own titles despite the fact they do what they say on the tin.
‘The Probationer’s Handbook’ – oh, that’ll be a handbook for probationers then.
‘The Key Of It All’ – oh, might that be a key that explains it all?
Oops, response submitted before I’d finished tearing a new arsehole for Taylor.
‘You label me a complete fraud, and so I’ll return the favor label you an ignorant fool that displays the all to typical elitist counter culture attitude of trying to be cool by showing your disdain for anything that threatens your limited tunnel vision.’
Punctuation and better spelling would’ve got your point across a little better in that sentence, however, I deciphered your gibberish sufficiently enough to understand you were having a go at me.
Crticise me all you want foolish boy, but I know you are a fucking fraud, and anyone who has studied magick seriously will know you are a fraud – which unfortunately leaves those poor bastards, just getting into occultism for the first time, to still learn that there are charlatans out there willing to take their money for the wisdom of an idiot that has played way too many role playing computer games.
I’d just like to say this is awesome entertainment, but for me it’s a little like watching people argue about whether unicorns or fairies are the best. But I should point out that I don’t under any circumstances want Mort to have a go at me. About anything. Ever.
And that’s a damned fine point, Daddy Tank. Thanks to Taylor and mental masturbators like him, the serious study of occultism has been reduced to unicorns and fairies just like you said – which is why I rarely talk about the matter these days. I feel almost ashamed about everything in modern culture. There are no pioneers any longer. Youth culture is crap, popular music sounds twenty years old, and occultism is dead. What age are you Taylor? It’s a serious question. I reckon probably under 30. When is your generation gonna scare me?
When I read exchanges like this I start to feel I’m floating in some half-flooded upper circle of hell where the news hasn’t filtered down from the surface that the air is still largely clean and the soil still fertile and there’s several escape routes back up and there’s actually no need to keep trying to tear the throats out of our living brothers and sisters in the delusion it will relieve our fear and horror at our collective circumstances, and no need to fight fire with fire because (new age quote coming here) “All attack is a cry for help” and its much much wiser to move somewhere else, or start an actual mutual dialogue, or turn our backs, or meditate on what it actually means and what energy is derived from the practice of turning the other cheek, which is it’s own reward as Nietzsche and others knew.
I’m sorry I have no particular point to make. I saw two people I would normally listen to an make time for ranting at each other so I thought I’d chip in. It could be the collective ‘we’re fucked’/ credit crunch/ 2012 super-meme has penetrated me to the point where exchanges like this by two articulate people – one a Guardian of the True Flame, the other a Hip and Pragmatic Explorer and Experimenter (as you characterise yourselves in my mind) waste each other’s time and everybody else’s with the sort of exchange I learned to walk away from when I was 13. I’m shocked, saddened, bored, amazed. Really fucking incredible.
Last paragraph edit:
It could be the collective ‘we’re fucked’/ credit crunch/ 2012 super-meme has penetrated me to the point where exchanges like this by two articulate people – one a Guardian of the True Flame, the other a Hip and Pragmatic Explorer and Experimenter (as you characterise yourselves in my mind) wasting each other’s time and everybody else’s with the sort of exchange I learned to walk away from when I was 13 – leave me completely lost with nowhere, I mean nowhere, to turn except inward, which I suppose is one good thing. I’m shocked, saddened, bored, amazed. Really fucking incredible.
Sorry to let you down, Jack. I thought it was pertinent to raise the question about Ellwood’s work for the sake of new comers to the subject, who might be easily bamboozled, and subsequently disappointed, by the rantings of a charlatan. A charlatan, incidently, whose only innovation is to endless talk about innovation and evolve absolutely nothing.
Well I like your books,alot, Taylor, they have been great books…. but I hardly find Chaos magic to be what is described in this article at least as far as the IOT goes and the other magicians I have worked with. Certainly, I myself am trying to understand the mechanisms of magic, and yes the results are the methods we know we are getting it. This isn’t just paradigm shifting, and I think this article presents a very simplistic view of how chaos magicians actually work, once they have been doing the work for a couple years. Experimental magic, chaos magic, post modern magic, …. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it might just be a duck. I don’t think I know one serious chaos magician who would disagree with this approach you outline in this piece. I mean this is really what we are all doing as “Chaos Magicians” so how is this that different? Now, granted, I will admit that alot of materials of people online, are as simplistic as you are portraying, but you know there are alot of serious chaos magicians doing exactly what you are talking about, and Peter Carroll absolutely advises doing what you are talking about and that circa 1987 ( I am rough on dates), let alone Phil Hine, Dave Lee, and a host of other serious magicians including myself. I am not sure how your work can not draw on chaos magic since chaos magic is a meta system, that allows for free “EXPERIMENTATION” with magic and the universe without dogma. In essence we are free to experiment and Explore because there may be no ultimate truth. There is no such thing as chaos magic, no system of magic or systems combined that create chaos magic. There is only an attitude. Remarkably Chaos magic sounds exactly like Experimental magick, when taking in its original, historical, and philosophical context.
Don’t Get me wrong, I personally like alot of what you have to say in your books, I just disagree here.
-Andrieh Vitimus
Author of Hands On Chaos Magic
Hi Andrieh,
The difference between experimental magic and chaos magic, is that while chaos magic is a meta system for drawing on other magical systems combining them together, experimental magic is a meta system for drawing on disciplines outside of magic and combining those disciplines with the discipline of magic. That and I’ve never identified as a chaos magician and don’t see my writings reflecting a chaos magic approach. Chaos magic is just one tool set among many others and I like to encourage to draw on those other tool sets.
Chaos magic, by the admittance of various people, yourself included, is a results based approach to magic. It’s emphasis is on getting results and people don’t even necessarily need to know how they got the results, so long as they got them. I tend to think of that approach as push button magic.
Experimental magic is a processed based approach to magic. It emphasizes understanding how magic works. Results are used as indicators as to the efficacy of the process, but are not the most important focus of the magical practice. Understanding the process by which magic works is the main focus of experimental magic.
Taylor, you are entitled to your opinion of course… A truly confident magician has no need to claim more or less then they are, since they know they are themselves and that is beautiful. You do have some original ideas in the books and I have already given you much kudos for those. Claim those.
In response to the wanting results, and push buttom comment ( and then I am done with this thread).
To get repeatable, more pronounced, and more reliable results ( not just one off results which you label as push button results which not ONE CHAOS MAGICIAN I KNOW only ties to get all the time) in the way that Peter Carroll, Dave Lee, Andrieh Vitimus, Phil Hine, Stephan Mace, and others and any other serious magicians advise, requires the magician to analyze their methods continuously tweaking out their methods in line with their own experience and in line with the objective result achieved. I could directly quote Peter Carroll in Liber Null ( 1987 ), but suffice to say, this is a common theme based in part from Illumination based magic and just making sure you have solid methods that are repeatable. In my opinion, it is not possible to obtain repeatability without gaining an understanding from a personal level of the mechanics of how magic best works for the individual ( which might not be the same across individuals). In fact, “Hands on Chaos Magic” starts out with, “IT is more important to understand the mechanisms of magic, then have a one off spell”. Clearly, there is a misunderstanding or misconstruement here about what is chaos magic. Analyzing the methods in line with personal experience and objective results, tweaking those methods, re-analyzing the new methods in line with objective results and personal experience. Rinse Repeat. This process does not sound like “push button” nor does it sound like I am unconcerned with the mechanisms. The actual process sounds like I am extremely concerned with mechanisms, repeatability, and reliability. I think but don’t know, that most chaos magicians would agree with the above ideas, of course they can speak for themselves as Mortimer did ( although I am not sure if he or she considers themselves a chaos magician).
Of course, you are absolutely free to not identify and market yourself as chaos magic. Certainly, I fought with Llewellyn over the title of my book, but I know the historical currents and where I would fit into the greater occult ecology. This decision to not refer to your books as chaos magic is a perfectly rational, sane and potentially more profitable way to do marketing, advertisement and image branding in line with your works that you do not see as chaos magic. I certainly can hold none of those motivations or any others regarding the labeling and choice of labeling against you.
For the readers of this piece, however, while I strongly disagree with Taylor here in this article, I do believe that Taylor’s books do have good ideas, they are worth taking a peak at if you get the time, I personally did get ideas from Space/Time magic, and Inner Alchemy and the Anthologies Taylor edits have a wealth of perspectives that are great.
-Andrieh Vitimus
Author of HAnds On Chaos Magic
I’ll move these comments along to the Forum, sittingnow.co.uk/forums
One question for you, Taylor… You speak here saying- “While some of the practices I utilize are derived from Chaos Magic, I also draw much more extensively on Ceremonial and Hermetic practices as well as Far Eastern techniques.” To me, this alludes to Chaos Magic as being a system in and of itself- wheras later on you admit that it is a metasystem. I’m curious as to which you believe Chaos Magic to be- system or metasystem? I think it is pretty clear even outside of Chaos circles that working with Hermetics, Eastern and/or Ceremonial practices is certainly not counter to Chaos Magic. I am still curious as to what you view as being the difference between your practice and Chaos Magic. Aside from the name, that is…
Cue drum roll…