![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Dion Fortune on Occultism
I don’t know a lot about Dion Fortune, an early 20th century occultist, but based on this essay that she wrote in 1925, I feel like she might have been onto something. Check out this excellent quote from The Deeper Issues of Occultism:
Occult science, rightly understood, is the link between psychology and religion; it gives the means of a spiritual approach to science, and a scientific approach to the spiritual life. The experiences to which it admits us, rightly understood, form a stairway from rational brain-consciousness, dependent on the five physical senses, to the direct apprehensions of spiritual intuition.
I really like this business about occultism providing a connective link between psychology and religion. Seems like an extremely important key. She also has what I think are some very insightful edicts against getting into this stuff out of mere intellectual curiosity:
If, however, we desire to essay this adventure, we should remember that the ancient rituals were used as part of a religious system, and that no initiate of the ancient Mystery schools would ever have dreamed of experimenting with them to satisfy his curiosity or love of the marvellous. He approached them with reverence, after strict discipline of character and severe tests of fitness. It was when the lofty ideals fell into abeyance that black magic began.
If we want to penetrate into the deeper issues of occultism, it is not enough that we should approach it out of intellectual curiosity. This will reveal us no more than its outer form. The Occult Path is not so much a subject of study as a way of life. Unless the element of devotion and sacrifice be present, the key will not turn in the lock that opens the door of the Mysteries.
There are also some lines in this which I think are a useful addition to our on-going discussion of conspiracy theory, and what it tends to do to people. She writes:
There comes a time in the experience of every student of the occult subjects, provided he is sufficiently interested in them, when the ideas that occupy his mind begin to affect him, and the unseen world of which he has read is slowly rising above the horizon of consciousness, and the subtle is becoming tangible.
He will find himself in a veritable No Man’s Land of the mind, and he must do one of two things, and do it quickly. He must either bolt back into his body like a rabbit down its hole, or he must press on and open up the higher consciousness. But one thing he must not do, and that is, linger in the land of phantasms that is the frontier between subconsciousness and superconsciousness, for that way madness lies.
When he comes to the gate of higher consciousness, however, he will be met by the Angel of the Threshold who will ask him the age-old question that he must answer before he can pass on, and the answer to this question is not any Shibboleth that admits to a secret society, but the very reasonable query to be addressed to the stranger who knocks at any door, “What is it you want?” and the answer to that question will depend, not on the knowledge, but on the character of the applicant.
This definitely cuts to the heart of the “occult arts” - that is: why are you doing this? Not enough people in these areas seem to ever ask themselves this. Nor would they be too happy to realize that the desire for ridiculous “magic powers” or even to fill intellectual curiousity is not enough. She talks too about the need to purify yourself and your intentions. Pretty good stuff. Anybody know any other good Dion Fortune material, or else other occultist work in this vein? I appreciate it so damned much more than all the “power of the will” type-stuff, which I’ve always found sort of pompous at best, and dangerous at worst.
April 25th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
If that was writtein in 1925, I imagine that mention of “love of the marvelous” was a direct dig at the surrealists and their parlor-occultism. “The Marvelous” was a surrealist watchword.
“Let us not mince words.. the marvelous is always beautiful, anything marvelous is beautiful, in fact only the marvelous is beautiful.” - Andre Breton
In general the surrealists were all about “unleashing” the unconscious. But even among the surrealists, there were materialists (Georges Bataille, Louis Aragon) and spiritualists (Rene Daumal).
April 25th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
hm i hadnt thought of that. thats a good connection to explore in more detail. i wonder if theres any writings on the surrealists and the ritual magick of the early 20th century?
April 25th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Coincidence or not, Tim, but I quoted Dion Fortune today as well. All I have of hers is Psychic Self-Defense, which I highly recommend.
As I was reading her last night, I dug out my Charles Williams novels. He strikes me as being in her tradition, as well as of her time. If you haven’t read him, you might want to. The weakest book, I think, is Shadows of Ecstasy, but any of the other six would make a good beginning.
April 25th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
fortune wrote what is one of the absolute best books on the qabalah ever written, by my estimation. it’s called (strangely enough) ‘the mystical qabalah.’ i always recommend it to people interested in the philosophical basis of the qabalah– it teaches the spheres and their correspondences with amazing clarity. read it! yeah!
April 25th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Angel of the Threshold (according to Dion Fortune)
“When he comes to the gate of higher consciousness, however, he will be met by the Angel of the Threshold who will ask him the age-old question that he must answer before he can pass on, and the answer to this question is not any Shibboleth that admits to a secret society, but the very reasonable query to be addressed to the stranger who knocks at any door, “What is it you want?” and the answer to that question will depend, not on the knowledge, but on the character of the applicant. If rightly answered, the way will be made plain for his advancement; if wrongly answered, he will be left to find his way back to the Earth plane as best he may, and that is neither a very pleasant nor a very safe experience”.
Come on folks, don’t you recognise the lore? This is Mephistopheles who is asking Dr. Faustus (according to Christopher Marlowe) or Dr. Faust (according to J. W. von Goethe), who asks his pupil what is he wants. No, it is not Knowledge, Illumination, you name it . It is, as usual Gold and Guns and Girls!
Wake up!
“And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.”
(2 Corinthians 11:14)
April 25th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Franz Bardon’s system of magical development (Initiation Into Hermetics is the first volume) stresses the need to know and develop self-knowledge and balance before you can truly advance along the path. I find it a very mature approach, in sharp contrast with more power-greedy types.
April 25th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
mario: its also essentially the same story as the genie in the lamp. the genie comes out and asks you to fulfill your wishes. but then the wishes that you ask for always wreak destruction on you. and the moral of that story is almost always that youre supposed to wish the genie his freedom.
i think thats precisely what fortune is saying about. and i think it agrees with your faust reference. in your language, you could maybe recast this as: satan comes to you saying he will fulfill your wishes. then you tell satan that your only wish is that he be redeemed. is that a bad thing?
further, i think if you go around looking to fit satan into everything, and trace his unseen presence in all outlines, then you WILL find him there, because you will be the one casting him there with your own fear - which is the only way he gains power, in my opinion
April 25th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
OIQ1:”then you tell satan that your only wish is that he be redeemed. is that a bad thing?”
DDC1: No, it isn’t, but the why bother evoking him at all?
OIQ2:”you will be the one casting him there with your own fear - which is the only way he gains power, in my opinion”
DDC2: Thank goodness you are wise enough to call it an “opinion”. My opinion is, is you start (step 1) thinking of “clearing out the weeds” (sounds familiar?) of obscurantism (no Angels, no Devils); then the world seems pretty empty and barren, so (step 2) you start invoking Angels (if you are a Doctor John Dee, whose brain got soft from too much studying) or evoking them (if you are a rascal like Dee’s helper Edward Kelley); then (step 3) angel do despond, only trouble is the sort of angel who respond to this sort of “Angelic Hermeticism” are the scrapped ones; and then (step 4) you start finding yourself in real trouble.
My dear OI, there is no point being a “Joseph Campbell Prize” winner, if in the end you find yourself indulging in books of “Ritual Magic” (or magick, if you want to give it a dash of Aleister Crowley)
Legenda
OI: Occult Investigator (Tim Boucher)
DD: Debunker’s Debunker (Mario Stratta)
Qn: Quotation from OI
Cn: Comment from DD
April 25th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
well mario, we’ve reached the point where i feel inclined to ask you why you’re even on my site at all, let alone studying it so fervently. you too are now “indulging in books of ‘Ritual Magic’” - whether or not you’re trying to “debunk” them, you are allowing their influence to permeate your mind.
i personally think this is an excellent thing to do, to challenge yourself to step outside yourself like this. but i do feel inclined, like the hermetic angel of the threshold to ask you:
“What is it you want?”
April 25th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
OIQ1: you too are now “indulging in books of ‘Ritual Magic’”
DDC1: no, I am not, you have let all and sundry know Occult Investigator is, and takes them in earnest too!
OIQ2: “why you’re even on my site at all” “challenge yourself to step outside … yourself”
DDC2: the two together are not separate enough in the text to disguise a freudian slip, a barely hidden wish
OIQ3: “What is it you want?”
DDC3: What a funny, desperate question for Occult Investigator!
April 25th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
so now you’re just going to be mean? i thought we were having a discussion like civilized people. if you want me to start making fun of you, say the word, and i’ll go for it, my friend. remember that you’re the one who came to me, and began asking me questions and judging me. ive only ever tried to be helpful with you and explain my side of things
April 25th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Occult Investigator Says: “if you want me to start making fun of you, say the word, and i’ll go for it, my friend”
Debunker’s Debunker Says: any time, my dear!
You did not seriously think that all visitors of your site were sheepish acolytes of Occult Investigator, did you?
April 25th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Occult Investigator : I notice you have hurrried on to “Saving Satan”. Well the situation must really be like “House on Fire” RED ALERT. See you there.
April 25th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Getting back to Dion Fortune, there is a chapter on her in Maggy Anthony’s book “Valkyries : The Women Around Jung”. Might be worth tracking this down.
I’ve read one of her novels “The Goat-Foot God” and found it interesting but not rivetting. There is a decent article on her at sacred-texts.com:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos474.htm
April 25th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
re mario: the answer to “What is it you want?” is pretty apparent: he wants to learn how it’s done (how to acquire sheepish acolytes, that is)
April 25th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
i wonder if theres any writings on the surrealists and the ritual magick of the early 20th century?
Well, you might want to check out Georges Bataille. He was an early surrealist who later became known as the “theoretician of eroticism” and the “philosopher of evil”. Very dense, idiosyncratic, literary “frenchified” style. He analyzed religion from a perspective of absolute or “base” materialism. He definitely had that creepy Nietzchean will-to-power thing going on:
“French essayist, philosophical theorist, novelist, often called the “metaphysician of evil.” Bataille was interested in sex, death, degradation, and the power and potentialities of obscene. He rejected traditional literature and considered that the ultimate aim of all intellectual, artistic, or religious activity should be the annihilation of the rational individual in a violent, transcendental act of communion.”
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bataille.htm
It’s often left out of art books that surrealism began as an early, ill-fated attempt to unite aesthetics with politics and harness the powers of the unconscious in the service of revolutionary social change. Louis Aragon spearheaded the attempt to integrate surrealism with communism. He eventually went to Moscow, broke with the surrealists, renounced his early phantasmagorial “modern mythic” anti-novels, and devoted his efforts to writing doctrinally pure social-realist novels. Rene Daumal, another early surrealist, ended up hanging out with Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, and eventually went to India. As for Bataille, well let’s just say he was plenty weird. I don’t know that you’ll find a way forward in looking back at the surrealists, but there’s definitely some lessons and cautionary tales there.
April 25th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Arizona Says:
re mario: the answer to “What is it you want?” is pretty apparent: he wants to learn how it’s done (how to acquire sheepish acolytes, that is)
Very witty, Arizona, you are obviously not of them (sheepish acolytes, I mean)
April 25th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Mario is lost. He needs a good woman to fuck him. Unfortunately, most women are repelled. Oh, the sacrifice of sex to make a man feel manly. I wonder why he is on this site too? Remember the Mash movie where the nurse is encouraged to do her duty to help the poor doctor cope? As one is apt to say Earth to Mario. Get real. We are discussing religion and psychology, not your cogitive dissonance. You are too nice sometimes Tim, but that again is your way. Thank whatever your purpose is. You are nicer than me. This guy makes me want to vomit.
April 25th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
ha, i think rhondda’s right on the mark with this one. heh. i like this one:
>> OIQ3: “What is it you want?”
>> DDC3: What a funny, desperate question for Occult Investigator!
what a lame, arrogant response from the kind of intellectually itinerant asshole whose raison d’etre seems to be some kind of contrarian sophistry. going back over his responses, they’re actually devoid of any kind of content. reminds me of the pseudo-zen dickheads i used to know in college who thought that by being contrary they were expressing some kind of enlightenment, when they were just being . . . well, dickheads.
April 25th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
rhondda Says: He needs a good woman to fuck him…. You are too nice sometimes Tim
Well, rhondda, you could be of asssistence there. Why don’t you volonteer a good blow-job for jp. He seems only familiar with assholes and dickheads.
April 25th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Well thank you Jp. I appreciate that. Ususally when I express my gut feeling, I get shit. I really like Tim’s analysis of “stuff”. He is thoughtful, considerate and much more patient than me. He makes me think which is more important than any ideology and that is what is is all about. Well that and where the heart is.
April 25th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
mario, you really are quite the character, arent you? i’ve enjoyed your taunts and they’ve brought me some new ideas (intentionally or accidentally). but it seems like the only person you’re effectively debunking is yourself. especially as you slide further and further away from actually bringing any substance to our discussion and more into games of name-calling and finger-pointing.
those types of games are all well and good for blowing off steam and realizing what’s what, i think. but there’s more going on here than just that. if you’d like to be a part of it, i warmly invite you to stick around.
PS. what the hell is with all your weird numbering systems? QQD1XV995? it doesn’t make any sense. just say what you want to say
April 25th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Well Mario, I think JP is just fine. I expected this from you. Let’s get down and dirty because you can’t relate to a woman in any other way. You need a goat not a woman.
However, I would hesitate with that as I really think animals need their own kind.
April 25th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
rhondda: as to your original comments about him “needing a good woman to fuck him” i think you’re actually making an excellent illustration of one of the stages of the monomyth that i was describing yesterday, “encounter with the goddess”:
April 26th, 2005 at 12:16 am
Ah. Tim, you are right on as usual. There was a time that I did identify with the goddess, an archtype to be sure. It was more earth mother than anything sexual. However, when I realized it — that I was identifiying with it, I realized I was not that and I was just human. This is to me what alot of men see in a woman. They project some kind of goddess on a women and just as men are not the gods, so women are not goddesses either. The hard part is when you withdraw the projection and the other person cannot handle it. Women project the animus and men project the anima. To be sure. it enhances the experience, but when the honeymoon is over, we need to see each other as human. Sometimes it is better if the god or goddess is imaginary rather than human. Alot of hurt can be avoided. However, when two people understand this the heart bcomes stronger. Golly gee, I am a romantic at heart. But our projections are a large part of our conditioning and what we believe, so it is a nesassary step to learn to grow. To be hurt is part of it all. Aren’t I profound. Must be the beer. However, having said all that, we still fall in love, and get disappointed knowing all this. We grow in the expectation of not expecting our personal ideal, but desiring our personal reality. That is the real goddess/god. Few realize it and I have not, so this is just an opinion and a belief. We have got to open to love. You express that when you talk about looking out for the person and not the belief that causes distress etc. So in my system, you have encoutered the goddess and made a decision as to how you are living. That more men can do this is my profound wish. I just hope I have been able to get my sons to see it. I am very hopeful.
April 26th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Occult Investigator Says:
“you slide further and further away from actually bringing any substance to our discussion” =>It is all there, April 25th, 2005 at 5:31 pm, Dr. Dee (or Mr. Kelly)!
OI says: “what the hell is with all your weird numbering systems? “=> There was a legenda, and even jp seems to have understood. QQD1XV995, has it got any exoteric meaning? You know, OI, numberrs needn’t be mystical.
rhondda Says: “You need a goat not a woman.However, I would hesitate with that as I really think animals need their own kind.” => The logic is a bit shaky, but if you have any hopes, sorry to disappoint you, I am not the Beast with cleft foot.
And now, goodnight guys. Lets move on. SATAN NEEDS SAVING
April 26th, 2005 at 12:40 am
mario: hm, looks like youve really turned the tables on us with your latest brilliant counter-argument
rhondda: im actually kind of touched by what you wrote, and i can identify with it deeply. im sure youve done an excellent job with your sons. but then its the kind of thing that each person must learn or not on their own. i know for me it was (and/or continues to be) an enormously challenging and rewarding task to remove my projections from other people, be they anima or otherwise. i’m really glad to hear that some portion of that shines through in my work.
April 26th, 2005 at 1:02 am
Thanks Tim. Poor Mario with his cleft foot. I did not realize this until now, but at university, I took medieval English studying chaucer. He has a story called the Parliament of Fowls. It is about an upperclass lady who has to chose her love from three suiters. Each one represents a class of person and has a bird totem. It is quite politcal, but this gentleman Mario just fit one to a tee. I can’t remember which one and he has inspired me to find out. Sometimes the old is new again. Sometimes the jerks trigger new paths.