CHAOS VS THELEMA ?
Alistair Livingstone

Inspired, no doubt foolishly, by a new moon and the Cramps "Psychedelic Jungle", 
I have decided to enter the Thelema vs Chaos debate. This is of course an 
impossible task, which is no doubt why it appeals to me.

Firstly, what is it that distinguishes Thelma from Chaos? In Starfire, Mick 
Staley attempts to distinguish Thelema from Crowleyanity. Thelema he suggested 
pre-existed Crowley`s formulation of it. This immediately causes problems, since 
for the majority of magicians, Crowley = Thelema. But if it can be accepted that 
there is a something which exists independently of Crowley`s writings, then it 
must be this something (Thelema) which is to be contrasted with Chaos Magick. 
The core of this something, I suggest, is the Will. Is this idea of the Will in 
any way opposed to Chaos?

What is Chaos then?
For the purposes of this argument I will interpret Chaos as follows: that the 
familiar world of everyday experience has its roots in Chaos. So that any 
attempt to understand the world via reason reaches a boundary, on the other side 
of which lies Chaos, a state of existence/non-existence which cannot be 
understood by the rational ego. However, through the techniques of ritual, that 
state can be manifest in the everyday world, suspen-ding the accepted "laws" of 
common sense and allowing magick to occur. Furthermore, perhaps as a result of 
the practice Chaos magick, the idea of Chaos is slowly entering the popular 
imagination via science. This refutes classical science, which is based on the 
belief that if the structure of the physical world could be sufficiently 
precisely modeled in a mathematical form, it would be possible to predict the 
future state of various systems (whether, for example) which make up the 
physical world.

However, it is now grudgingly admitted that this would require a precision of 
measurement which it is impossible to achieve. Engineers have long since had to 
accept this uncertainty - that all measurement is limited by the accuracy of the 
measuring device. Absolute precision is an impossible goal. There is always a 
degree of uncertainty, an instability, and by focusing the Will upon this 
either/or region, the magician can exert an influence upon the world at this 
level, which when it occurs, can produce the Willed outcome.

To the extent that Chaos is a form of magick, ie. it seeks to exert an influence 
upon the world of everyday consciousness, it must involve the Will. Otherwise it 
would be closer to a form of mysticism, that is the attempt to "go with the 
flow" of the experienced world without seeking to influence the direction of 
that flow. In this form, Chaos is closer to a "higher form of order", that is 
that the apparent random or chance events of one's exper-ience of existence are 
in fact the result of some greater existence than that of the individual. And 
that by disengaging the desires of the ego-self, one can experience this greater 
existence, interpreting the obstacles and blows of everyday existence as a 
stimulus to the development of a "Stoic" consciousness, which will enable the 
self to eventually swim freely as a fish in the river of the Tao, or Chaos.     
The idea which this is based on tends to be that of the hermit, the forest sage 
of Hinduism, the solitary adept of High Magick. No doubt if it was possible in 
this present age, one could experience such an existence if one could remove the 
self from the rest of human existence. But such a model is no longer valid, 
since the growth of human consciousness is such that there is no virgin 
wilderness left in which to undertake such a quest. We are forced to contend 
with the results of the human desire for knowledge, power, control and security.

This is perhaps the crucial difference between Chaos magick and Thelema. 
Thelema, as developed by Crowley into a form suitable for the 20th century, 
contains a whole heritage of experience and practice which reaches back through 
the Golden Dawn through herme-ticism to Egypt and Sumeria, which in turn drew on 
the beliefs of our nameless ancestors who struggled to create models of the 
world, cosmologies and creation myths within which to make sense of their being 
in the world.

Crowley`s task, as had been of Mathers and Eliphas Levi before him, was to 
synthesize this vast body of conscious/unconscious knowledge and represent it in 
a way understandable by at least a few of his contemporaries. Partly it is a 
question of language. Unfortunately the language of magick was limited by the 
dominance of Judeao-Christianity on the one hand and Reason on the other. Our 
everyday language derives from our perception of a world made up of 
distinguishable objects, and on the faculty of sight primarily. But as soon as 
we move into the more subjective sphere of magick, problems arise. To what 
extent do we share the same magickal reality and use words such as "the Will" in 
the same way? The problem is not confined to magick. For a time I worked in 
quality control at London Rubber. Periodically I had to compare my work with 
others to make sure we were all applying the same so that I was not rejecting 
condoms that another person was passing. In science the theory is that one 
person's work is critically examined by their peer group. The difficulty is that 
as soon as creativity enters the picture, it will tend to disrupt this process. 
The test of any form of magick should be "does it work?". But how can that be 
judged, since the results of a ritual may not become apparent for some time. In 
the early eighties, much work was done to halt the expansion of nuclear 
weaponry. But it is only now, as profound changes occur in Eastern Europe, that 
this can be judged a success. And the changes may yet be lost by a failure of 
imagination and the difficulty of challenging the parasitic military-industrial 
complexes of both East and West.

Thelema may be saddled with the archaic terminology inherited via Crowley from 
the Golden Dawn, but at its heart lies a crucial bullshit detector. I have found 
that the question "what is your Will?" directed at any group or individual who 
claims to be desiring change is a very effective challenge. What is unsettling, 
however, is the discovery that in most cases it evokes only silence, or at best 
a string of evasions.

This I feel is the most damaging criticism of Thelema, that it has failed to 
cross over from magick into the diverse pool of "alternative" beliefs which seek 
to reshape society. This is hardly a question of mere academic interest, as 
Green issues emerge and look set to dominate the next decade, the "spiritual", 
that is neo-pagan, belief structures which infest Green consciousness are also 
going to exert a growing influence. We may yet discover that the future, as the 
Dead Kennedy predicted, will be "California šber Alles".

Can Chaos magick then succeed where Thelema has not (yet)? I doubt it, since the 
reaction to both by the average alternative type (let alone Joe Normal) is that 
it is "too dark". The very word "Chaos" tends to get tagged with "anarchy" and 
evoke nightmare visions of mad-axemen running wild in the street. Of course, for 
some this may be its very appeal, anything so bad must be good...

No, somehow we have to achieve the Sysphean task of applying the notion of Will 
like Occam`s razor to the fast multiplying dualistic entities of New Age 
(un)awareness. In practical terms I understand this to mean directing our Wills 
at and with the growing Green movement, so that rather than disappearing into a 
fog of "good intentions", it becomes a real and willed critique of consumer 
culture. Just as Marxism failed to achieve its desires, since the working class 
had already been "mobilized" by the capitalists, so magick fails since the 
energies of the mass unconscious have already been tapped by advertising, via 
the mass media.

The energy tending towards change of consciousness (evolution) has been 
subverted by consumer culture into the desire to possess an unending stream of 
glass beads and cheap cottons, or in our case, microwave ovens and mink belly-
button brushes. The whole thrust of advertising is to bypass our logic circuits 
and touch directly our desire for status and security. We don't just buy the 
product, we buy the dream, maya the illusion of success. It is, however much we 
may protest, a form of magick. I may be an impoverished squatter in a third 
world shantytown, but if I can buy a bottle of Coke, I believe I possess the 
whole dream of the richest American millionaire. I may be a Trabant owning East 
German, but by crossing the (former) abyss of the Wall I become a potential 
Porsche possessor.

But if you look at those already possess such dreams, what do you find? That it 
is, as in California, these same people who turn to the most ridiculous New Age 
bullshit in order to satisfy their craving for something more, for something to 
fill up the endless aching void they feel scratching and gnawing like some 
Charles Manson nightmare outside the walls of their Beverly Hills mansions.

But of course, the last thing they want to hear is "the truth". Better to create 
a multi-billion dollar New Age industry than accept that within the richest 
mansions lies the reality of Chaos, of that Void which spins around itself the 
veils of maya, the dance of illusion, in which one is equally a starving beggar 
and a voluptuous moviestar. "What is your Will?".

Of course I am somewhat prejudiced for all I used to sing along with Bowie on 
Ziggy Stardust (I could make it all worthwhile as a rock n roll star) I chose 
magick as a path. Through experiences both beautiful and terrifying I have come 
to understand the human condition as but one aspect of a continuum of 
consciousness. For me, the whole universe is a living entity which I interact 
with in the fleeting streams of energies which inspire my awareness. Both 
rationally and poetically I perceive my brain, my body as part of the very 
substance of the universe and not distinguishable from it (i.e. NUIT). For me, 
the human condition is part tragedy, part farce. We are semi-intelligent apes 
who have been driven by fleeting glimpses of what might be, to create this 
world, our reality. But in our ignorance, we mistake the glimpse for the whole, 
the ego for the self. We strive for "order" and create a chaos, and then 
recognize in chaos a "higher form of order".

"Knowledge is power, power is control, control is security". Oh yeah? But 
knowledge is also pleasure, a pleasure more intense than any created by 
security. Security is sterility, sterility is death. We pay lip service to 
evolution, but cannot accept that evolution implies change, and change denies 
security. What do we will?

If our will is security, stability, then that we shall have, as so many fossils. 
To embrace Chaos (Thelema) is to renounce such false gods and accept that our 
actions as magicians will change not only ourselves, but our world. Insofar as 
both Chaos and Thelema are valid paths, thus far will they change us. To cling 
to an identity, however pleasing or fulfilling, is a denial of magick. Magick is 
about change, the only constant factor in the unfolding of the implicate 
order/chaos of the universe.

Along with Thelema and Chaos, I also practice the magick of Maat. To the 
Egyptians Maat was the "right order of the universe". The contrast is between 
the familiar Hindu concept of "karma", which deals with our human existence and 
the less familiar concept of  "rta" which deals with our aspects as forms of 
(universal) consciousness.

Magick diverged from science some 300 years ago. Science sought to discover "the 
hand of god" in the natural world; magick sought to become the equal of the 
gods. Now we witness the overlapping of these paths. We are no longer the 
creations of some distant god, but the natural products of the universe. We have 
"evolved" out of a handful of organic chemicals. Now we have the ability, 
through the replication of DNA to evolve ourselves. We have, literally, the 
powers of a god. What we lack, and what magick must seek to provide, is the 
intelligence to use (or refuse) such power. The way to achieve this is to ask 
the question: "what is our will?" Are our genes our motivating force, or is 
there something else which I call "consciousness"? This consciousness I hold to 
be implicit in the structure of the universe, and has been revealed as such by 
quantum physics, how-ever difficult such a realization may be for us. It may be 
unprovable/ undeniable, and therefore unscientific, but I suggest that our so-
called consciousness is a quantum phenomena.

This is what Crowley experienced as the interplay of Nuit and Had it in the Book 
of the Law. It is also the root of Chaos. So that Thelema and Chaos are but 
different aspects of a single (multiple) experience, expressed in languages 
appropriate to their different times and ambiances.

Alone I cannot fully express the complexity of these possibilities, and yet we 
must each try to do so. Only by placing them at the heart of our experience of 
being in the world, can we hope to create a society which will survive rather 
than perish under its unconscious contradictions. As yet we are but "naked 
apes", but we are apes with sufficiently complex brains to at least glimpse the 
possibility of being more than we are and become "homo veritas", that is truly 
human at last.

As we are, we cannot fully know this to be true, only with our imagination can 
we glimpse the potential implied. It is my Will to bring this about, this is why 
I write these words, that they have touch and stimulate whoever may read them. 
So mote it be.

On rereading the above, I feel the need to expand the argument somewhat. Having 
bashed my way through an anthropological essay on nationality and the state, it 
struck me that recent events in Eastern Europe have many consequences. The whole 
point of the "iron curtain", was to allow East to develop its alternative 
economic system, as spelt out by Marx. What is happening now is the 
incorporation of that economic system into a global economy, which implies the 
failure of Marxism. This failure leaves a power vacuum. The majority of 
critiques of the Western power structure have come from Marxism. But if it is 
now seen to have failed, the possibility exists for a more powerful critique to 
arise.

Where will we find this critique - in magick. Of course this requires magicians 
to adopt a more rigorous intellectual approach to their beliefs, but surely that 
is what Chaos/Thele-ma argument is about, with each side arguing that the other 
is deceiving itself as regards the "true" form of magick. What I am suggesting 
is that magicians start to take magic seriously as "energy directed (willed) 
towards change". Rather than as an escapist belief system parasitic upon the 
economic success of capitalism. To practice magick we must surely believe that 
we inhabit a magical, rather than a strictly economic universe. How much more 
effective would our magick be then if we could replace the belief system of 
economic society with that of a society rooted in a magickal conception of 
reality.

Such is the apple with which I tempt you - do you dare taste the forbidden fruit 
?

     Alistair Livingston
     ----
I do know him personally and am glad to meet him again in summer. A. Livingstone 
is a pseudonym of Ramsey Dukes (which is a pseudonym too :-)). He is member of 
the OTO and made a lot of Chaos working & theory. He wrote some very genuine 
books about magic (Liber SGDSMEE, Thunderqueak), is now concerned with KI (Words 
Made Flesh).  You can contact him via: T.M.T.S., Wharf Mill, Winchester, Hants, 
SO23 9NJ, England With fractalic greetings and laughter  * Fra.: Apfelmann *
Notes on the role of the historical Egregore in modern Magic by Fra.: U.D. 
      
It is quite easy to poke fun at the historical claims of most magical and 
mystical orders, especially when they purport to have derived from "very 
ancient", possible even  "Atlantean" or, to top it all, "pre-Atlantean" 
brotherhoods for whose existence even the most sympathetic historical scholar 
worth his name would be very hard pressed to find any significant proof.  
Actually, it is rather a cheap joke to cite, for example, AMORC`s claims that 
even good old Socrates or Ramses II (of all people!) were "Rosicrucians". 
However, the trouble only starts when adepts mistake these contentions for 
_literal_ truths.  "Literal", of course, derives from literacy and the letters 
of the alphabet. And, as Marshall MacLuhan has justly in his "Understanding 
Media" and perhaps even more so in "The Gutenberg Galaxy", western civilization 
has a very strong tendency towards _linear_ thinking, very probably due to - at 
least in part - the linear or non-pictographic nature of our alphabet. The very 
structure of this alphabet informs us at quite a tender age to think in terms of 
linear logics such as cause and effect, or, more interestingly in our context, 
PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE.  This is not at all a  "natural necessity" as most people 
are wont to think, for the ideographic or pictographic "alphabets" as used for 
example in ancient Egypt or even modern China and Japan tend to bias the 
correspon-dingly accultur-alised mind towards what MacLuhan terms "iconic 
thinking" - a percep-tion of holistic factors rather than the systematization 
into separate (preferably indivis-ible) single units. Western thought has 
formulated this problem as the dichotomy of the analytic_ and the _synthetic_ 
approach. But it is perhaps no coincidence that our contemporary culture tends 
to associate "synthetic" with "artificial", vied modern chemistry. 
      
Now magical and mystical thinking is quite different; in fact it is not half as 
interested in causality, as is linear thought. Rather, it strives to give us an 
overall, holistic view of processes within our perceived space-time continuum; 
an overall view which includes the psychology of the observer to a far stronger 
degree than even modern physics seems to have achieved in spite of Heisenberg`s 
uncertainty principle and Einstein`s earlier theory of relativity. In other 
words, mythological thinking is not so much about literal ("alphabetic"?) truth 
but rather about the "feel" of things. For example, a shaman may claim that the 
current rain is due to the rain goddess weeping because of some sad event. He 
might predict that her phase of mourning will be over in two days time and that 
the deluge will then end. A Western meteorologist might possibly come to similar 
prognoses, but he will of course indignantly deny using any of "this mystic 
stuff" in the process.  His rain goddess takes the form of barometric pressure, 
wind velocity and direction, air humidity and the like - but who is to say which 
view is the "truer" one, as long as abstract and mystic predictions prove to be 
accurate? From an unbiased standpoint, the modern demons "barometric pressure", 
"wind velocity" and factors of a similar like are just as abstract and mythic as 
the shaman's hypothetical rain goddess - especially so for us laymen who 
religiously follow the daily indoctrination via the TV weather forecasts and 
satellite photograph divination: all we can do is  _believe_ in what the expert 
tells us is the truth. The non-shaman in a shamanic society shares a very 
similar fate when he has to believe simply that the rain goddess wants to be 
comforted say, by a substantial donation of meat or tobacco in the course of a 
fully fledged tribal ritual. 

There _is_ an important difference however. If we accept the model (strongly 
propagated by A.O. Spare, who was, of course, in his very special manner, quite 
an orthodox Freudian) of magic primarily taking place within the subconscious 
(Freud) or, less ambiguous, the unconscious (Jung); and if we furthermore agree 
that said unconscious is not only the source of personal magical energy (mana, 
or, as I prefer to term it, _magis_) but tends to think and act in symbols and 
images, we might come to the conclusion that  our shaman's explanation may 
perhaps not be scientifically more satisfying in Western  terms, but it is 
surely more in accord with the way our unconscious tends to perceive reality. In 
that sense it is not only more "natural" but, one suspects, even downright 
_healthier_ for psychic hygiene. It is, so to speak, more "ecological and 
holistic" in terms of psychic structure.  

As an aside I might mention that it is the better explanation for practical 
magical reasons as well. For at least rain goddesses can be cajoled into 
happiness by magical technique, ritual trance and the like until they stop 
weeping, a task a meteorologist will hardly be able to imitate. (Actually I have 
preferred the magic of rain prevention to the more classical example of rain 
making because it is far more relevant to our own geography and experience). 
      
In recent years Rupert Sheldrake`s theory of morphogentic fields has raised 
quite a hue and cry, not only within the confines of the scientific community 
but strangely enough among occultists too. I find this latter reaction quite 
astonishing, because a lot of what Mr. Sheldrake basically claims is nothing 
more than the old, not to say ancient, tenet of philosophical idealism: namely 
that there is what in both German and English is called "Zeitgeist", a form of 
unique time-cum-thought quality, leading to surprisingly similar albeit 
completely independent models of thought, technical inventions, political truths 
and so on. One would rather expect the people to be profoundly intrigued to be 
among materialist/ positivist biologists or physicist rather that occultists who 
have traded in the Zeitgeist principle ever since occult thought proper as we 
understand it arose in the Renaissance. From a pragmatic point of view Mr. 
Sheldrake is behaving very much like our meteor-ologist, replacing mythic 
explanations with crypto-mythic "scientific" factors. Unfortunately, most 
scientific scholars tend to fear a devaluation of scientific termini tecnici; 
once they are mentioned in the wrong "context" (almost invariably meaning: by 
"wrong" people) they are readily labeled as "non-" or "pseudo-" scientific - 
which is, after all, precisely what happened to poor Mr. Sheldrake amongst his 
peers in spite of all his academic qualific-ations. This example goes to show 
how very much estranged occultists can be from their own sources even when 
working with them daily. 

Reality too is always the reality of its description: we are marking our pasts, 
presents and futures as we go along - and we are doing it all the time, whether 
we are conscious of the fact or not, whether we like it or not, we are 
constantly reinventing our personal and collective space-time continuum. 
Space seems rather solid and unbudging; even magic can do very little it seems 
to over-come its buttresses of solidity and apparent inertia, occasional 
exceptions included. (May it be noted that I include matter in this space 
paradigm, because solid matter is usually defined by the very same factors as is 
space - namely width, length and height.)  Time, on the other hand, is much more 
volatile and abstract, so much so in fact that it is widely considered to be 
basically an illusion, even among non-occultist laymen. And indeed in his famous 
novel "1984" George Orwell has beautifully, albeit perhaps unwillingly, 
illustrated that history is very little more than purely the _description of 
history_. (Which is why it has to be rewritten so often. It seems that mankind 
is not very happy with an "objective past" and prefers to dabble in "correcting" 
it over and again. This is quite an important point I shall refer to again later 
on.)  History is, after all, the defining of our past own roots and  our 
_present_ position within our linear space-time continuum in relation to past 
and future. Very often, unfortunately, the description and interpretation of 
history seem little more pathetic endeavor to obtain at least a minimum of 
objectivity in a basically chaotic universe. The expression "ordo ab chao" is 
more or less a summary of Western thought and Weltanschauung, of the issues 
straining and stressing the Western mind since ancient Greece. Chaos is 
considered "evil", order on the other hand is "good" - then the political 
philosophy, if you care to dignify it by this terms, of  "law and order", 
appeals to people's deeply rooted fears of loss of stability and calculability. 
("Anarchy" is another widely misunderstood case in point.) The ontological fact 
that everything is transitory has never been particular well-received in Western 
philosophy and theology.

Now before you get the impression that I am only trying to impose a typical 
exercise in heavy-handed Teutonic style philosophical rambling upon your 
overbusy reading mind, let me hasten to point out that if past, present and 
future are, at least in principle, totally subjective, we as magicians are 
locally perfectly free to do what we like with them. For the magician is a) the 
supreme creator of his own universe and b) the master of Illusion (ref. the 
Tarot card "The Magician/Juggler"). This freedom of historical choice, however, 
is seldom realized let alone actively applied by the average magician. Maybe one 
of the reasons for this has to do with the somewhat pathetic fact that most of 
us tend to live our lives in a more or less manner, being mild eccentrics at 
best, distinctly avoiding becoming too much over the top. There are a number of 
possible explanations for this, ranging from  "every magician is just another 
guy/gal like me" to "prevention of insanity". As we deal all the time with 
insanity - i.e. extremely unorthodox states of consciousness by bourgeois 
standards, we magicians prefer some stability in our everyday  lives and 
makeups, but  this is not really our topic.

Rather than delve into social normality of the average magician I should like to 
investigate the many bogus claims to antiquity as put forward by a multiple of 
magical and mystical orders from this point of view. Such orders range from 
Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism and Theosophy to such venerable institutions as the 
O.T.O., the Golden Dawn and many others. Their historical claims are usually 
quite stereotyped: the spectrum covered Includes Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, Solomon, 
Moses, Dr. Faustus, St. Germain, the Gnostics, the Knight Templar, the Cathars, 
the Illuminati, the Holy Grail myth, prehistoric witchcraft, matriarchy, 
shamanism etc.

Now it is quite common for shamans, to cite one example, to claim that in the 
good old days (usually, of course, dating back to a non-calibrated, non-defined 
time immemorial) things used to be much, much better. One of the more profane 
reasons for this contention may be the fact that most of these shamans have 
already achieved quite a venerable age in their trade; and don't we all know the 
typical attitude of old crones towards modernity? It may not sound particular 
spiritual or holy but maybe all we are seeing here is the Primitive's parallel 
to the "Now when I was in Poona with Royal Indian Army, young lad..." reported 
occasionally to be heard in some of today's pubs.

But there is more to it, I think. By calling up "bogus" ancestors from Moses via 
Solomon to Dr. Faustus and St. Germain, the magician not only reinvents his own 
history, he also is summoning up the egregore of these "entities" (along with 
all their powers and inhibitions of course) - or, to put into Mr. Sheldrake`s 
terminology, their morphic fields. By violating     all the painstaking  
endeavors of the meticulous historian, by simply ignoring a number of tedious 
and possibly contradictory facts and questions (such as whether Moses and  
Solomon have ever  _really_ been sorcerers of some standing in their own time) 
the magician becomes God  in the fullest sense of the expression: not only does 
he choose his relatives in spirit quite arbitrarily, he even claims the right to 
do what not even the Judeo-Christian god of the old testament is ever described 
as doing, namely changing "objective past" at will.

This type of creative historicism appeals, so it seems, very strongly to the 
unconscious mind, supplying it with a great deal of ideological back-up 
information, thus reducing its conscious-mind-imposed limits of "objectivity" to 
at least some modicum of superficial probability.  It is only when the occultist 
mixes up the different planes of reference, when he purports to speak of 
"objective linear truth", instead of mythic or symbolical, decidedly non-linear 
truth, that serious problems arise. This should be avoided at all costs in order 
not to strain our psychic set-up by contradictory evidence, which can easily 
result in an unwilled-for neutralization of all magic powers.

But this, of course, is the same problem as with occult scientism. "Rays" are 
quite a convincing hypothesis to base telepathic experiments on, as long as you 
don't try to overdefine said rays by epitheta such as "electromagnetic" or the 
like.  For if you do, you become the victim of scientists` zealous inquisition 
boards. Or, as Oscar Wilde might have put it, it is not truth which liberates 
man's mind but lying. (Which, again, is one of the reasons why Aleister Crowley 
entitled his magnum opus "The Book of Lies" in the first place...)
Let us then resort to  _creative historicism_ whenever we find it useful. Let us 
not have "historical objectivity" dictated to us by the powers that be. Let us 
accept our fuzziness of expression which is, after all, little more than a 
honest acknowledgment of the fact that symbols and images are always more than 
just a little ambiguous, as our dreams well prove every night. As in divination, 
it does not pay to become overprecise in magic: the more you try to define a 
spell, the higher probability of failure. It is quite easy to charge a working 
talisman quite generally "for wealth"; it is quite another to charge it to 
"obtain the sum of $347.67 on March 13th at 4.06 p.m. in 93 Jermyn Street, 3rd 
floor" and still expect success. While the latter may strangely enough succeed 
occasionally, this is usually only the freak exception of the rule. However, by 
systematically rewriting our past in fuzzy terms, possibly eventing past lives 
and biographies for ourselves consciously or arbitrarily, we are fulfilling the 
final demand of Granddaddy Lucifer's "non serviam". Let nobody impose his or her 
time and history parameters on you!

And for practical exercise, allow your clock occasionally to be well in advance 
of your contemporaries; let it sometimes lay behind for a few hours _and_ 
minutes (do not just change the hour hand as this would make it easy to 
recalculate into demiurge's "real" space-time continuum, making you yet again 
its slave!)  Do this to learn about your former ill-advised humility towards the 
current time paradigm  - and about the illusory character of time and its 
measurement in general. Rewrite your personal and family history daily, invent 
your own kin and ancestors. "Problems with Mom and Dad? Pick a new couple!" 
Experiment with retroactive spells, try to heal your friend's flu before he even 
contracted it.  But do this in a playful spirit lest your censor should whack 
you for your constant violations of the rules of this game by again confusing 
the frames of reference. Jump from one parallel universe to the next one, never 
permit yourself to stand still and become enmeshed by Maya's veil (you are 
supposed to be the _Master_ of illusion, remember?). And don't panic: for 
nothing is true, everything is permitted.