The author missed the point almost entirely. The whole idea of Chaos to chaos magic is two-fold: first, it is not just a "formless void from which the cosmos evolved", but an inherent, underlying principle of reality, that everything in the universe is subject to the chaos of randomness (and by using traditional occult correspondence standards, if one thing is changed into another, it retains an inherent connection to it's previous state); second, it is precisely the apparent philosophical and methodological contradictions the Chaos Magician seeks to take advantage of, hence its name as such.The author seems to confuse Chaos Magic with Discordianism, and while there is certainly some overlap, the two philosophies are separate and distinct.Chaos Magic was not unconnected with the fictional writings of the sword-and-sorcery fantasy author Michael Moorcock (...) Certainly, there can be no doubt that it seems to have been from here that the idea for the logo of the Chaosphere originated.I can think of no better source for a symbol of Chaos Magic, a system that claims to be able to evoke entities from Cthulu to Bugs Bunny!There is also a tendency to use a shows word where a short one would do, and the pretentious usage of Latin rather than 20th century English for no apparent reason.The bulk of occult authors fall victim to this (or, at the very least, the successful/popular/well-known authors). I don't like it either, but this author is nit-picking.Throughout mysticism, there have never been any absolutes: there is no ultimate causality or truth, and the nature of "solid reality" has always been held to be something in the manner of an illusion or a dream.So, reality is a dream, there are no absolute truths, except this one is just plain wrong? Seriously?in order for it to work, an Act of Magick requires the performance of an Act of Will, with the objective held firmly and unwaveringly in mind. If a result is not then forthcoming, it is not so much because of the (paradoxical) effect that an unpredictable, chaotic element is preset, as that either (a) he current concentration of one-pointedness was not strong enough to overcome local conditions, or that (b) the intention was not itself appropriate in terms of the evolution of the universe, a sentient entity of a different and superior kind altogether to homo sap.Discounting (b), as Chaos Magic (to my understanding) usually disagrees with this notion, the only difference between "a chaotic element countered the effect of my Will" and "my Will was not enough" is philosophical at best and semantic at worst.All magickal acts are meaningless, or powerless, or both, unless done specifically to to rectify a perceived imbalance within the universe:It's like the author didn't even read about chaos magic at all, a system of practical magic that does not concern itself with balance or purpose. This shows just how dogmatically the author believes in Thelema, a system of belief that is, in my own opinion, usually quite respectable, except in cases such as these where the author wields it like a philosophical club.NOTE: Since this review was written, it appears that Peter Carroll has stepped down from his role as head of the I.O.T.I'd be interested in knowing at least the relative dates of these two events. How much time passed between the review and Carroll stepping down? A week? A month? A year, or longer? Even if it was a short time, why would the author believe that the head of the IOT gives any shit what a Thelemite thinks of his writing?permalinksavegive gold[]FraterFive 3 points 1 year ago This guy made the point better than I could.Also I imagine this is old. I don't think Peter J's been running the IOT for a while.permalinksaveparentgive gold[]mongreloctopus 4 points 1 year ago I agree with you, and I am a Thelemite. The author has gone down the strawman path in a big way...and then, of course, there's the blatant misunderstanding of thermodynamics and symbology.It is always disturbing to see the flag of Thelema unfurled above dogmatic subservience to any idea, but especially to those ideas predicated on self-importance and ignorance.permalinksaveparentgive gold[]fr-IGEA 1 point 1 year ago Very much agreed, brother. I could probably be described as a chaotic Thelemite or a Thelemic chaotee, though these definitions are hardly of interest to anyone (myself included). Believing otherwise seems like a horrible, yet quite usual trap.permalinksaveparentgive gold[]GreenSophia[S] 1 point 1 year ago I'd be interested in knowing at least the relative dates of these two events. How much time passed between the review and Carroll stepping down? A week? A month? A year, or longer? Even if it was a short time, why would the author believe that the head of the IOT gives any shit what a Thelemite thinks of his writing?Skoob Esoterica Anthology, Volume 1. The volume I own is from 1994 but it's possible this article had been published somewhere previously. I was flipping through it the other night and came across this pretty whimsical and bold indictment on Chaos Magick and Carroll. knew I had to post it here to get some opinions. I agree with what most have said here, it appears to have been written under a pretty thick dogma daze. But i found it stimulating one way or the other.