Posts
Reading through Enochian Initiation I was struck by some of the similarities between Frater W.I.T.'s experiences and the experiences of my own ritual group when we attempted a series of elemental invocations based on the solve et coagula formula used by most modern magical orders. The idea is for the most part simple and logical - it consists of a series of initiations based on the arrangement of the four classical elements and adds the element of Spirit at the end of the cycle to bring the other four elements back together and integrate the experience. Frater W.I.T. found that Earth and Air were relatively easy, but going from Air to Water was much more difficult. This is what we noticed as well - Earth and Air went quickly, everyone had little trouble showing up and making time for the related practices, and nobody's life exploded. I was laid off from my job at the time toward the end of Air, but as I had been considering quitting for many months and being laid off instead gave me a sizeable severance check, I can't really consider that much of a disaster. Water, however, was a different story. A number of people in the group ran into various personal problems and the series dragged out as we wound up having to reschedule a number of the workings. We pushed on and finally finished Water, Fire, and Spirit but it took us a lot longer than we originally expected and the end of the series was not nearly as smooth as the beginning.
After much deliberation, I think the problem may be with the solve et coagula formula itself, which requires a rethinking of one of the most basic initiatory structures of the Western Esoteric Tradition.
Solve et Coagula essentially means "dissolution and unification." Solve is the root of the English dissolve and Coagula that of coagulate. It is a formula that is drawn from European alchemy that describes the process by which substances are distilled into their component parts, each individual portion is then purified, and finally the components are recombined to create a synthesis of the purified elements. In initiatory work, time is spent working with each of the elements on its own and once this is complete Spirit is invoked to bind the elements back together. The most common pattern is the inverse of YHVH - Earth, then Air, then Water, then Fire - although some orders work the pattern in order of density - Earth, then Water, then Air, then Fire.
One of the biggest difficulties with this pattern is the problem of rushing ahead. As realization expands with the invocation of the "higher" elements, problems that remain in the "lower" elements can be magnified and manifest in pathological ways. In theory, if one were to completely master Earth once could move on to Air without encountering any problems. The difficulty there is that complete mastery of an element can take a lifetime, and it is difficult to know when to move on. A lot of magical and pagan folks have ongoing trouble with Earth - I have certainly met quite a few of them who have problems holding down jobs and managing finances. Frater W.I.T. was guided by the Enochian Angels who told him when it was time to move on, which is an effective way to work so long as the communications you are receiving are accurate. It is hard to implement this in a group setting, though, in which a standard initiatory pattern is desirable.
So what to do? I read a fair amount of Ken Wilber, who synthesizes a lot of psychological research related to personality development and connects it with stages of spiritual development. In Integral Psychology Wilber outlines how the personality develops by integrating new stages of awareness in a series of concentric rings, each of which includes all previous stages of development. This is different than the "great chain of being" model exemplified by the "perennial philosophy" in Western Esotericism in that rather than metaphorically climbing a ladder in which the steps are separate states that are predicated upon but not inclusive of the previous steps, in that Wilber's model is much more holistic. Each new step includes the whole of personality development in addition to itself, and the result is a more integrated (or in Wilber's terminology, "integral") concept of psychological development.
When we worked with our elemental series each element was invoked for six weeks. For the first week we invoked the element as whole, and then during the next four the parts of the element would be invoked individually (for example, Earth of Earth, then Air of Earth, then Water of Earth, then Fire of Earth), and on the last week we would invoke the Spirit part to bind the other four parts together. The daily practice corresponding to this included our regular rituals (Lesser Pentagram/Lesser Hexagram or Star Ruby/Star Sapphire, and some sort of general invocatory practice like the Middle Pillar or Animadversion to the Aeon) along with the Greater Invoking Ritual of the Pentagram for the element we were working with during each six week period. This structure was based on solve et coagula and the idea was to completely immerse ourselves in each element as we worked through the series. These rites actually seemed very effective and a number of people in the group had interesting realizations, but they were not completely successful in that various problems arose in peoples' personal lives that to some extend derailed the practice.
Wilber's model suggests a new way to invoke the elements. Rather than working with Earth, then switching to Air, then switching to Water, then switching to Fire, and then finally invoking Spirit, the magician could begin with Earth and then add the subsequent elements in order as they are invoked in a series of initiatory rites. The specific daily practice for this would consist of beginning with the Greater Invoking Ritual of the Pentagram for Earth at the beginning of the series, but keeping the Invoking Pentagram of Earth in the north (its proper microcosmic direction) when moving on to Air. Air then stays in the east along with Earth in the north when the magician moves on to water, and finally with the addition of Fire the magician would be tracing the pentagrams of all four elements to the proper microcosmic directions. This maintains the foundation established at the level of each element, which could at least in theory act to stabilize the realization more effectively than invoking each element on its own. For the period invoking Spirit, something like Liber V vel Reguli would be ideal, especially since it uses the inverse pentagram that represents spirit condensing into matter.
The elemental series could also be integrated with a practice like Liber Resh vel Helios in which the invoking pentagrams and Golden Dawn grade signs used in the Greater Ritual of the Pentagram could represent "the sign of his grade" given prior to the adoration. As with the pentagram ritual, pentagrams could be added as the series moves along. The magician would start by making the Earth pentagram and sign to all four directions, then keep making the Earth pentagram to the north but move on to making the Air pentagram to the the other three directions and so forth.
So here's what the whole thing would look like following the standard inverse YHVH formula.
Basic Daily Practice
Star Ruby
Star Sapphire
Animadversion to the Aeon
Liber Resh
The first three rituals should be done once per day, more often if desired and time permits. Liber Resh should be done throughout the day. Remember that if Daylight Savings Time is in effect, noon and midnight are actually more like 1 PM and 1 AM.
First Six Weeks: Earth
Make the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Earth to all four directions when performing Liber Resh.Use the Greater Invoking Ritual of the Pentagram for Earth. This follows the Star Sapphire and precedes the Animadversion to the Aeon.
Next Six Weeks: Air
For Resh, make the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Earth for midnight, Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Air for morning, noon, and evening.For the Greater Pentagram, make the Invoking Pentagram of Earth in the north and the Invoking Pentagram of Air to the other three directions.
Next Six Weeks: Water
For Resh, make the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Earth for midnight, the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Air for morning, and the invoking Pentagram and Sign of Water for noon and evening.For the Greater Pentagram, make the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Earth in the north, the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Air in the east, and the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Water to the south and west.
Next Six Weeks: Fire
For Resh, make the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Earth for midnight, the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Air for morning, the invoking Pentagram and Sign of Water for evening, and the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Fire for noon.For the Greater Pentagram, make the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Earth in the north, the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Air in the east, and the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Water to the west, and the Invoking Pentagram and Sign of Fire to the South.
Next Six Weeks: Spirit
Resh is same as Fire.The Greater Ritual of the Pentagram and Animadversion to the Aeon are replaced by Liber Reguli, which includes the Animadversion.
This can then serve as ongoing daily practice once the elemental series is complete. Some sort of dramatic initiatory ritual could be substituted for the first week of each element, or added so that the series goes from 36 to 42 weeks. As a bonus, you could add something like Liber Samekh for the rest of the year and attempt the Invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel for the last ten weeks.
Update - December 2007: This article was written about 13 months ago. In the meantime, my magical working group decided to go forward with a second elemental series of invocations inspired by this pattern. We also incorporated some ideas from Mark Stavish, who works with the elements by density order rather than inverse YHVH. This changes the sequence so that Air and Water are switched, making the order Earth -> Water -> Air -> Fire -> Spirit. We repeated the original series, but using Stavish's order along with practices similar to those outlined above, though not quite as extensive. We used the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram, a modified version of the Lesser Ritual of the Hexagram, and a Golden Dawn-inspired ritual for invoking the elements, since not everyone in the group is as familiar with Crowley's rituals as I am.
The results were very different from the first set of invocations. There were relatively few crises while we were actually working the series and unlike the first time around we didn't reach a point where getting the rituals done became much more difficult. This could be attributed to a number of factors, but I am of the opinion that the revised practices were the key. I think that using the Stavish order was helpful as well in that the density-based order creates a better and more stable foundation for ongoing magical work, but in the end I think problems were magnified by isolating the elements in the first set of rituals and this led to all sorts of difficulties. Furthermore, for whatever reason none of these problems really resolved themselves during the first series, but seemed to only exist to create static.
During the second series some problems did arise, but it seemed as if those problems held off their full intensity until the series was concluded and the situations those problems produced led to real resolutions. On the basis of these observations, I am now working with the tenative working hypothesis that solve et coagula really does require a more effective replacement.
13 comments:
Hi There - I'm working through your archives right now (great stuff, by the way), and came across these references to Stavish. Can you show me where Mark references this order of elements? I'm a fan of his work, and would like to read more about his approach in context.
Thanks again!
Follows the order of passive spirit invoking pentagram. Also in the Mass: "life love liberty and light"
"Health and Wealth and Strength and Joy..."
93
Could you share more of your results in reworking the Solve et Coagula formula (with rearrangement of density)? Specifically, what problems arose and what ultimately resulted that you consider success?
Not asking for anyone's personal info or private affairs, just a more detailed account in a generalized way of your results. It would be very helpful. Thank you.
The physical basis for arranging the procession of elements definitely makes sense. I guess what I'm really curious about is what one can consider a "success" in working with a particular element as well as predictable complications. More over, how success with one element provides the necessary prerequisite for the element that follows it.
When you state that your members encountered emotional or relationship problems when working with water, did these issues arise unexpectedly and consistently among members, such that their concurrence gave a strong indication that working with the particular element was responsible? You note that other magicians and groups report the same thing, so is there a guideline based on compiled experience to at least give an idea of what to expect or even avoid?
My reason for going after specifics is that it would be helpful, especially for solitary magicians, to have a sense of the actual collective experience of undertaking such work to compare with one's own. Granted, a person's own circumstances will always vary somewhat from others such that outcomes will differ from person to person, but a general consensus would go a long way to establish a standard measurement to gauge one's own outcomes.
The most important criteria for success with an elemental series is completing the series. Dropping out before the sequence is complete clearly constitutes failure, given that the series was undertaken with the idea that participants would stick with it until the end. Beyond that, positive life events during the series, and verifiable insights obtained during it.
I would say they were consistent enough that there was an indication that the element was involved. As for how strong that indication was, I'm not sure how I can quantify that. And I really, really wish magicians would sit down and share their experiences into a database or something like that, but as far as I know nobody ever has gotten a bunch of different practitioners together who were willing to do that. So what I hear from other groups and see published in books and so forth is anecdotal at best, not in any way scientific. I publish articles here, but any individual set of samples is small. It can point the way, but it doesn't establish anything in a reliable scientific manner.
Secrecy keeps killing us, full stop. If we ever want magick to be as well-understood as, say, physics, we have to put together reasonable standards for data, implement peer review, and so forth. The fact that so few people seem interested in that sort of thing is why we're centuries behind the physical sciences. We need it for exactly the reason you put forth here - to help solitary practitioners evaluate their work and share their verified findings with others.
"Secrecy keeps killing us, full stop. If we ever want magick to be as well-understood as, say, physics, we have to put together reasonable standards for data, implement peer review, and so forth." - Absolutely. Very well put. Personally, I would like to see magick break fully with religion, and defer less to the wisdom of the past. Look how much science accomplished in doing so.
It's beyond frustrating that results, actual experiences related to magical work, are so rarely if ever given. While I consider the practice of magick to be fundamentally different than that of science, they can overlap and inform one another. The universe is big enough for both.
The anecdotal reports you speak of are sufficient, in my opinion, given the highly specific conditions of the external (macrocosmic) and internal (microcosmic) involved. Gather enough anecdotal reports and we can discern patterns that will be invaluable to determining what constitutes success or failure in a general sense.
Rather than modeling magick after the scientific method (though I have no objection to such an endeavor), I imagine a new genre of writing, akin to the autobiography that includes not only the specified details of a magical practice, but what followed in lived experience. The coincidences and heightened perceptions that typify magical results. The magical diary would be the source notes for these imagined works.
May I assume that in your group's elemental working Earth corresponded with the habits/routines of daily life, including earning a living, material stability, Water to one's emotional well being, particularly relationships, Air to one's intellectual/imaginative life, the development of the personal cognitive map, and Fire to one's ability to break the norms and routines, daring new experiences?
Science is just a formal method for understanding nature, and it is the best and most reliable method we have. Magick is part of nature. So the idea that magick and science are somehow in conflict strikes me as nonsensical.
While the scientific establishment generally disapproves of paranormal research, that has nothing to do with the scientific method itself. It is true that we are not at a point where we can measure things like consciousness precisely, which limits a lot of paranormal work. But these are things that we should be working to overcome.
People posting about magical experiences based on their journals is not a new form of writing. Many people have done it. The problem is that it's hard to say how reliable those accounts are. Without a good working model of magick that has been scientifically verified as far as it can be, it's hard to work out what elements of those accounts should be possible and which are likely embellished.
Yes, those are areas of life that map to the elements as I understand them, and what we observed when working through the series.
I'm more of the opinion that nature is nature and magick is a method for understanding, and manipulating nature, just like science, albeit not as reliably (possibly due to being somewhat mired in the past in its present state) as science at this point. However, I question whether a magical operation can necessarily be subjected to scientific investigation. I'm not opposed to such a pursuit per se, but question if it's necessary. If all such endeavors fail, then what? Do we write off magical practice once and for all as sheer fantasy because it did not adhere to scientific inquiry?
Question: If it turned out that magical practice could never achieve any scientific consensus, that its practice was always confined to varying individual experience, would it still hold any value for you?
Personally, I'm fine with the scientific and magical methods operating side by side. One does not need to validate the other, though they certainly can inform each other and overlap.
I also agree that the idea of magick and science being in conflict is nonsensical, as I indicated in my prior comment.
Rupert Sheldrake is the first name that comes to mind in applying the scientific method to paranormal investigation, and while I am a fan of his, his results has been somewhat underwhelming.
It's true we are not at point where we can measure things like consciousness precisely, but it may also be true that we may never be able to measure consciousness precisely. To assume that it is only a matter of time before we can is scientism, not science. Again, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, only that we shouldn't assume that success is a given in time or that everything must adhere to human reason.
"People posting about magical experiences based on their journals is not a new form of writing."
- Excellent! Can you give some examples? It seems almost everything I've ever read in the field gives instruction and endless theory, but rarely any results.
Wouldn't these people posting their magical experiences from their journals count as peer review?
"Map to the elements" - Good to know. If you have any further specifics regarding your results based on the reworking of the elements, I'd appreciate hearing about them. As you said, secrecy keeps killing us. I will make sure to finish the work after I begin, thank you.
Scientific investigation of the paranormal is necessary in order to gain a reliable understanding of it. Completely subjective methods are unreliable for this purpose. Magick is in no way an alternative method to science - it's not even the same class of thing. Magick is more akin to a technology, whether you use it for shaping events, consciousness, or both.
Your question assumes scientific verification is ontology - that is, the definition of all that exists. It is not. In fact, the scientific method is always "wrong" to a degree by design, since the cutting edge of science inherently consists of investigating things that have not been scientifically verified yet. Obviously, things exist before they go through the process of scientific verification.
If a magical practice gets me what I want, it's of use to me whether or not it's been scientifically verified. I find all the practices that I do now useful, and there has never been a large-scale formal scientific verification of any of them - with the possible exception of meditation, which has been studied to some degree.
I'm not making an assumption either way regarding measuring consciousness. Since we don't have a clear model of consciousness, we don't have a good idea about what it is. We may never be able to measure it precisely, but at the same time we might. Predicting future technology like that is difficult, and I certainly didn't mean to imply I was doing that. It's more like IF we develop a way to measure consciousness, THEN we will have a much easier time investigating magick and the paranormal scientifically.
An example of people writing about their magical experiences is Aleister Crowley's Confessions. There are many others. Much of Crowley's magical journals has been published as well. The problem with "peer review" regarding such publications is first, that there aren't many magical practitioners to begin with, and second, the sort of critical discussion between them that happens in the physical sciences is rare. So there is some review, but in my opinion nothing rigorous enough to produce much in the way of advancement in the field.
"Scientific investigation of the paranormal is necessary in order to gain a reliable understanding of it." - I understand your position here, I just question whether that is possible. It may be that magick is inherently subjective. As you stated, the scientific establishment disapproves of paranormal research, but is this due to prejudice of the scientific establishment or simply that what little research that has been done has not yielded enough evidence to warrant its serious consideration?
No, my question does not assume that. My question was simply that if magick could never be verified scientifically, which you believe is necessary to gain a reliable understanding of it, would it still hold value for you. And you answered that it would. Thank you.
"We may never be able to measure it precisely, but at the same time we might." - Agreed. I'm not against scientific investigation into the paranormal. I just have my doubts that it would yield any genuine understanding of the practice, but I'm okay with that. Magick would still hold value for me.
Yes, I've read Crowley and while I respect his work, I suspect there is some degree of embellishment on his part as well. I'm okay with that too. To quote the Beast -
“In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.”
"there aren't many magical practitioners to begin with" - Disagree. Considering how many people I personally know that practice Tarot or astrology, I'd say magical practice is far more common than assumed. They may not be practicing to the depth and degree as a ceremonial magician, but their dabblings do constitute magical practice. I would agree that there is a lack of any critical discussion between them, which is unfortunate. Perhaps their subjective experience of whatever they practice is enough for them.
If you would indulge me, what do you envision as the ideal for rigorous, critical discussion on the subject? What would that look like?
Honestly, your first question struck me as kind of a silly "gotcha" question. Magick has not been scientifically verified at this point. I practice it now and find value in it. Why would my opinion of it change if its situation remains the same?
Precise measurement is definitely a difficult problem. I'm just not read to assume that it's impossible.
It sounds to me like your take on that quote from Liber O is directly at odds with some of Crowley's other works where he addresses practical magick, like De Thaumaturgia. Crowley did believe that the results of practices that he mentions included practical, measurable things. He just wasn't sure of the exact mechanism behind them. That's still the case today, even though we have made a lot of progress since 1910 when that was written.
It's fine with me if people are good with their subjective experiences, but those don't get us any closer to a universal model and/or understanding of the process. What I meant in my previous comment was ceremonial magical practitioners. I don't consider people who are just into Tarot and/or astrology ceremonial magicians. It is true that those two disciplines have become much more common over the last decade or so, and astrology is practically mainstream these days for New Agers.
As far as investigation goes - my degree is in experimental psychology, which has in common with paranormal/magical investigation research attempting to quantify things related to internal states of mind and/or consciousness. What I would like to see are studies with larger sample sizes and higher p-values. We need to sort out how much of magick is universal and can be modeled, versus how much is specific to each individual. Also, brain research involving ceremonial magical practitioners would be useful. Some of that work has been done with advanced meditators from the Eastern traditions, but I don't know of any current studies involving Western ceremonial practitioners.
Those two "arms" would constitute a solid approach. From the brain perspective, we could look at scans corresponding to successful magical operations. While we can't measure consciousness per se, I am comfortable with the idea that brain states at least correlate to states of consciousness. From the general model perspective, we could look at the external components of ritual work in order to derive a general mechanism for material effects.
There is no need to get defensive. My questions are not posed to "getcha" in any way. I may disagree with you on some points but respect your right to hold the opinions you do. I do not see there being any definite right or wrong in this matter. If I question you, it is for more clarification.
The reason I ask if magic would hold any value for you if it could never be verified scientifically is because you seem very invested in that idea. There is a widespread attitude that if something is not deemed a reality by the scientific community at large, it is not worth considering (or practicing). Clearly you do not fall into this camp, but I was curious to what degree you felt verification is necessary.
As I've stated, scientific investigation of magick may be possible and a worthy pursuit to those interested enough to do so. But it is not necessary, and can even be a hinderance. To some people the need for verification can be a requirement for belief, thus my Liber O quote. Getting bogged down in the objective reality of magical practice can lead one to dismiss any such belief/practice before they even begin. I'll leave it at that when it comes to Crowley.
Personally, I think all magick is specific to the individual.
I would also like to see widespread support for the areas of investigation you proposed though I doubt it will happen any time soon.
To redirect back to the beginning of this discussion, if you have any more specific points of observation in your own undertaking of the Solve Et Coagula formula, I would very much like to hear them. A detailed account of your results could be a great asset to others beginning the work.
No worries. I was just trying to relate how the question sounded to me and explain my thought process, not to imply that you had some sort of agenda or even intended the question to come off that way.
I write a lot about scientific verification of magick for two reasons. First, not a lot of magicians are doing it, so I try to advocate for it as best I can. Second, I want to get to a point where we can make magick better and more effective. Investigation along scientific lines - to the degree that it can be done - is the best tool we have for that. Other methods are slower and less reliable.
Some aspects of magick are specific to the individual, for sure. But there also seem to be general patterns that are more universal, and I think exploring that is worthwhile. While it's true that this sort of work might never get done, I continue to remain hopeful that it will. At the very least, I would expect that getting a better handle on some of the issues related to consciousness should provide some insights.
Post a Comment