Here’s the post from yesterday: :http://darwiniana.com/2013/11/01/is-naomi-klein-innocent-of-witchcraft-a-paranoid-commenter/
Study of the macro effect makes obvious that witchcraft is not supported by the historical sequence of the ‘eonic effect’:
That forces the question, where does it come from. As Lynn Stuart Parramore notes in the original article:
witchcraft is very ancient indeed. The emergent religions of greater history leave it behind, but, at least with Xtianity and the ‘magic’ of Jesus, and Sufism hidden in Islam, they recycle it out of the use of the individual religionists.
In modern times the modern transition is even stronger here: there is no emergentist component to witchcraft. It disappears entirely.
But the eonic model is based on two levels, stream and sequence: there is nothing to prevent the ‘stream history’ outside of the macro effect from regurgitating the flotsam of the most ancient history. Read ‘magick’ by figures like Crowley, and the concoction called ‘wicca’, etc…
That’s a warning that exhuming the ancientmost aspects of human religion might backfire. This argument based on the eonic effect will be rejected by many. But the fact is that the Enlightenment said nothing about magic or witchcraft. Note pun. The macro effect doesn’t even recycle ‘buddhism’, one of its Axial glories (probably because it never repeats itself) Such things may be disguised in movements such as Rosicrucianism, but again that movement and its related cults have no sound macrohistorical status. But the stubborn persistence of the archaic is hardly surprising. Noone will agree to the model of man produced by the reductionist scientism of the post-enlightenment.
I say this because the effect of cultic occultism will prove disastrous in the end, and we can see already the confusion that is possible: we are seeing the disastrous hybrid: ‘witches of the world, unite’, as if witchcraft were a universal right that should be supported by the left. As it were. It won’t happen, but an immense set of confusions may happen instead.
I think that the article at Alternet correctly exposes the antiquity of witchcraft. And for males and females both that aspect of human evolution is absolutely primordial, going back to the age periods of earliest man. But the history of later religions suggests something different taking its place. That power is confiscated by a higher set of demands. It is like Frodo with Gandalf: don’t use this potential…Well, who knows, but the demand to make witches and magicians out of total populations is a species of madness. A good thrashing by Gandalf is in order.
The attraction of something archaic such as ‘witchcraft’ by feminists is the fault, really, of the patriarchal religions, which are very recent in human history, Axial Age effects. Gautama by refusing entry of women to his sangha should actually be ‘blamed’, so to speak, for the witchcraft demands of feminists. But their demands are a misunderstanding. They cannot help women by invoking the archaic, now demonological, world of witches. Instead they should take that primordial potential and do to it what the religion of buddhism did to the male equivalent. In that sense buddhism represents of bungled job.
But the evidence of the New Age movement shows dozens of women quite recently reaching close to, or into, ‘enlightenment’ There is no real need for a ‘path of witchcraft’. It will destroy most of its adherents, naive in the asumptions of a now past reality.
This doesn’t mean that the human will, in men or women, can’t have a spiritual vehicle for the future, transcending its primitive legacies. But such things have not yet appeared in viable forms, as yet. Many will deny this, and claim to be powerful magicians or witches after the fashion of figures like Aleister Crowley. But such figures are mostly aberrant failures, with great influence on the course of human stupidity. At the end of his life, Crowley had nothing and died in a garret.
That this is so is seen from the negative center of gravity of ‘magic’ or ‘witchcraft’: negative influence, up to and including murder. It is a dark malicious world, consigned to the past of man. you cannot make religion from that. A new and future realization of the potential of the human will is sure to come, but the only safe way to express the powers of the will at this point is to renounce them and seek ‘enlightenment’ first. Then the reality will bestow that deeper potential as it may.
In any case, the project to make witches out of feminists will prove disastrous. And make men so angry they may restore the veil!
The male obsessions with the occult will largely backfire, at this point.
My reference to Tolkien’s book is useful, but that book is part of the problem. Note that the whole story is a male myth, with no women, save, to be sure, at the highest level: where we see elven ‘witches?’, and spirit guides. I often that the Harry Potter series, still nearly patriarchal, was an attempt to enter the market for female frustration with Tolkien.
Whatever the case, the moral of that book might prove an equal caution to women. Magical aberration is more a male weakness. Women would do better to aspire to a higher ‘tantric’ path beyond the limits of the strangely crippled Axial Age Buddhism. The ancient sources of Buddhism show many signs of an earlier female participation in the classic paths. Better to move on that higher plane, beyond the prejudice, now irrelevant, of Gautama, than to embrace prematurely the toxic and now demonic paths of magic or witchcraft. The Harry Potter series is more wholesome is being more gender-open, but very toxic in its peddling of rank magical occultism of the lowest kind. This is a strange situaion. Men and women have a ‘will’, but they are bedevilled in its expression. It’s not surprising. It is only a Christmas toy at his point. The real expressions of ‘will’ in the universe are so far beyond correct human understanding. But, darned if I know.
You may well complain that man/woman’s magical potential remains unrealized. But that can’t easily be corrected, as yet. And I doubt if neuroscience will correct it. No use trying to steal the fire of heaven. That will come with a new man, perhaps. In thenonce consider the ‘wisdom’ of Schopenhauer, who, like Gautama, pointed not to the will in action, but to its negation. You reach beyond will in existence, and it comes to you in a higher form, perhaps.
Readers may be unclear of my use of the model of the eonic effect, but it is a sure guide to a host of obscure isues. We see that neither the Axial Age nor modernity produces a ‘religion’ of magic or witchcraft. That doesn’t mean one has to accept this verdice. But you do so without the larger tide of support given to the mainstream of the ‘macro’ dynamic, whose fulcrum is the Enlightenment. That is only the centre of gravity average for the human totality. Those who embark on the experiments like those of Crowley are in an indeterminate region. Note the way Crowley was conned by some unknown occult swindle into trying to make a religion of magick, in his book of the Law. That mystery is surely a degenerate fake, and a botch of religion. It is not a safe or wise resource. It attempts to democratize ‘magick’. It can’t deliver on that promise, and is filled with outrageous distortions of ethical principle. Surely this is a demonic pretense, confirming our suspicion that the larger macro effect is benign to the degree of not injecting such demonic con games into its manifestaion. (Study the stream and sequence distinction in WHEE, to see the point).
This does not forbid ‘wicca’ or ‘witchcrat’. It merely suggests it is a marginal wager with realization, at best.