Occulture and Internet
McDonaldisation of occult culture

Dear  inhabitant/citizen  of  the  Cyberspace

Do you consider yourself merely a passive consumer of the Net or an active
participant?
-- Mostly I just sit around and read my mail, so I have to choose passive
   for the most part.
-- Mostly passive. Most of what I see on the internet is superficial
   information or simply regurgitation/repetition of other peoples
   opinions and work. Some are just plain ridiculous (such as Ordo
   Antichristianus Illuminatus - OAI - who by their own definition exist
   only in the context of Christianity, which they intend to eliminate. If
   they succeed then they eliminate themselves.)
-- Im' not sure what you mean by the terms "active" and "passive" in this
   context, but I'll say this: I use the Internet and the World Wide Web
   as research tools [with sites like the Perseus Project, or Project
   Libellus, etc.]; I do not maintain a web-page or ftp site, however.
-- I try to include as many inhouse links to productive information. The
   website is there to educate. There are only 3 pages I have with outside
   links, and that is because 1) deals with Pagan networking, 2) deals
   with magick and some more academic sights have more information on
   specific subjects than I could represent, and 3) has some reciprocol
   links to sites that I feel have something to offer and have tried to do
   the same thing I am doing but deal with general Paganism instead. -
   Besides the website, I also own Grimoire-L, help moderate Darkpaths-L,
   have 3 webrings which I run, and myself and my partner have #witches on
   over 10 different IRC Nets. :)

What do you generally think about the active and/or passive consummation
of websites?
-- I think that the passive consumation of websites invite commersialism
   and consumerism - the growing "silent audience" of the net, I feel,
   threaten the original dynamism of the net. (I have been a net citizens
   since the summer of 94, and can attest a great change by those nearly 3
   years). Active consumation - it means that the parties; provider/host
   and consumer/guest, interact (which is true "interactivity": not only
   flashing buttons and animations on a contentless webpage containing
   links and nothing else) - and that is the intended use of this medium
   of communication.
-- I find simple "browsing" of the Web to be a pointless waste of time --
   one doesn't have much time to devote to The Work if one's aimlessly
   roaming about the 'net [IMO]: I feel the same about IRC, generally;
   occasionally there are organized meetings/discussions held on IRC
   channels that can prove profitable, though they are, admittedly, very
   rare in my experience. Personally, I think web-pages should be
   information repositories — your page for example, or Leaping Laughter
   Camp's on-line Library, Project Libellus, the Perseus Project and so
   forth; also, they might serve as points of contact. Personal pages [the
   type that say: 'hello, I am --- and I read --- this week and listened
   to --- and went ---.'] seem pointless wastes of band-witdh [IMO].
-- Passive consumption limits the information one can gain to what is
   posted on the site. Active consumption (communication with the people
   involved with setting up the site) can yield much more information.
   However, most sites do not indicate that there is any useful
   information to be gained by communication. For example, one Caliphate
   OTO site looks much like another, and if one is looking for general
   information about the Caliphate OTO then almost any site will do (to
   some extent).
-- The Web interaction is forming virtual larval egregores of mental
   energies. The participants' ego is mislead into assuming fake
   identities and tumorous personae. Participation into these egregores
   brings to the clients a sense of self-grandeur and importance, of
   belonging.
-- I only believe, that cyberspace and occultism are very familiar to any
   other kind of drugs. Each of them are giving a kind of "reality", that
   cannot be turned off. A Junkie will always be a Junkie. No matter what
   kind of drugs be used. (Sex, H, acid, TV, occultism, researches about
   occultism, love, religion and each other thing, that kicks up the
   mind).
-- I have seen some Net-addicted persons who do nothing else but surfing
   the whole day long, without any active participation. They say they
   feel OK. I cannot only link and watch, without learning or at least
   making a good use of web-sites.
-- I think that the Internet is active, either way you consider it. There
   can be no interaction without the user's intervention ... otherwise we
   might as well call it "television".
-- I think of passive consumation of websites a little more than what TV
   does. TV teaches people to veg in front of it, and besides the remote
   control people don't need to move to do anything. Unfortunately,
   websites have become similar in a lot of ways in the sense that they
   allow people to travel the internet without being active in it. Please
   check out this link for further information:
   http://www.mygale.org/09/uzine/manifest
-- PASSIVE PARTICIPATION FOR RESEARCH, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AS A WAY TO
   UNDERSTAND THE WORKING SCHEME OF NET-RELATED AFFAIRS.
-- I think, at best, the 'net is a great resource, but with this great
   tool comes a lot of hype. For anyone, whether "active" or "passive"
   (how can one be passive in this area?), I think for each, whatever best
   suits their needs.
-- Artists need audiences and vice-versa. Oftimes, a person can be both;
   those of us with enough ham in our makeup enjoy sharing our
   thoughts/tastes/opinions/creations with our fellow-humans and other
   intelligences on the Net. Likewise, it's cool to see what other people
   are doing.
-- I find remarkable things, but the *active* part comes in the effort
   needed to seek them out and critically evaluate the material.
-- If someone puts information on the Web, it's their own repsonsability.
   In a sense, because of the "world wide publishing" capabilities, anyone
   who has a website is considered an "expert", even if it is in their own
   mind. But that person is still responsible for that information
   (especially in the wake of the "Heaven's Gate" suicide two weeks ago).
-- Websites suck, I have one ... but they suck.

Do you often send e-mails via a homepage that you just visit without
knowing whether you are answered to?
-- Email sent to homepages is like email sent anywhere else. We don't know
   whether we'll be answered.
-- No, I do not e-mails via a homepage, I prefer taking down the e-mail
   address and writing through my e-mail program.
Do you participate in occult related newsgroups/Mailing Lists?
-- No! Tried it for about 6 months and found nothing of worth in them. Too
   much trivial drivel ... LOL
-- Not NewsGroups, but I do engage in mailing-lists. NewsGroups, as public
   as they are, are basically "spam magnets"; I don't have the time to
   wade through 40-50 off-topic messages just to find one or two on-topic
   posts. Lightly moderated lists such as Thelema93-L, the Enochian list
   of the Freemasonry list seem to be of more value.
-- If people would use them as they should be used for the discussion of a
   related topic instead of a soap box in which to preach I might enjoy
   them more.
-- I react only when I am involved personally (criticized for my attitude
   about "cults" and religious liberty or one of my books is misquoted
   etc.)

If yes, what is your experience re the possible change of human
relationships in the cyberspace (maybe due to the speed)?
-- I mostly do business through the cyberspace and this is different.
-- The primary change in human relations that I have seen is that we are
   thrown together with people we would never otherwise meet. This leads
   to a lot of awakening. It also leads to a lot of fighting, which can
   bring compromise or bitterness, but always awareness. The speed of the
   net combines with its distancing effect to allow people to become
   intimate and vulnerable. This is generally good, though there is the
   drawback that people are often unprepared for it.
-- Best of all, the Net makes it impossible for groups to keep abusive
   behaviour as secret as they once did.
-- The speed of e-mail is a major factor in the loss of the
   person-to-person approach. Handwritten (and stamped) letters and
   postcards are nice, but my handwriting is awful and I usually type the
   letter anyway. On the other hand, e-mail might be a factor in actually
   doing MORE towards interaction with others BECAUSE of it's ease-of-use.
-- I'm concerned that email is really poor means of conveying EMOTIONAL
   communication, and that the readers interpretation of verbal (written)
   communication is, therefore, often distorted in meaning. On the other
   hand, it is superior to other forms of written correspondence because
   the "dialogue" style of incutting-and-answering preserves a greater
   continuity of the communication thread and makes it more likely that
   clearer response will occur. The chance for someone misrepresenting who
   they are is immensely greater. This is a SERIOUS problem. Overall, I
   think that the Internet trend will depersonalize human contact in the
   long-run (and probably already has in the short-run).
-- The majority of people are assholes and fools. Now, however, they can
   prove it more quickly.
-- I think that it is easier for people to say nasty and ignorant things
   to each other without thinking twice, since non-verbal interaction such
   as this may sometimes be easily misunderstood.
-- It is a very mental way of communication. The feelings have no way of
   being transferred or expressed except through the mental process of
   written words. But even if feelings are discriminated, most people are
   not capable of only relating to the factual communication, and often
   projects interpretations both emotional and intellectually.
-- Cyber-relationships tend to be ephemeral, intense, controversial, and
   superficial. Also it fascinates me how cyberspace seems to bring out
   the "inner child" in many people, including the nastiness and
   emotionality of children, as well as adult sexual needs which are
   largely frustrated by a competitive, hierarchical, authoritarian
   society based on work.
-- There is an annoying tendency on the net, esp. newsgroup called
   "crossposting" which means that 99% of the posts on an unmoderated site
   will be utter off-topical nonsense. As for faster mediums - WWW based
   chats and IRC - I think it is a very acute and effective medium, the
   internet; if used in the right way, and by the right person.
-- People seem to relate to each other as semi-pure intelligences online,
   even though we know we each have a life or lives elsewhere. IMHO, this
   is a Good Thing, eliminating, as it does, grounds for bad attitudes
   based on race, age, comliness or the lack thereof, ethnicity, religion,
   etc etc.
-- We realize there are more of us than we thought.
-- I don't find human relationships changing in Cyberspace, EXCEPT that it
   is no longer important WHO you are (male, female, race, age, sexual
   preference, etc.). The Web is the great Democratizer, yet most of the
   people - even the young ones - can communicate well ... better than
   people on the street!
-- My travel funds and even long-distance phone funds are limited ...
-- Acquintances and friendships are made. Information is relayed faster
   and there are hopefully less secrets. I don't think that the real
   spiritual work can be accomplished via the web.
-- I have made real friendships because of the capability to interact via
   cyberspace.

Do you think that occult participants do have a different approach to
Cyperspace than the "others"?
-- No, because I don't really think that there is a such thing as an
   "occult participant". Of the few occultists that I actually know
   personally and respect, none of them are on the internet.
-- Not in general. Such a question would be like asking if occult
   participants have a different approach in ANYTHING in life. Most
   occultists I've encountered (in the most general sense) are usually no
   different than anyone else. A little eccentric sometimes, but many,
   (going out on a limb here!), are "into" the occult to hide their
   psychological (or other) deficiencies.
-- No, hooligans are hooligans, whether they are occultists, or Michael
   Jackson's fanatics.
-- I think that occultists tend to be very computer literate.
-- Occultists often think they are different from the others. I suppose
   that they keep this kind of thought when dealing with the Net.
-- In my experience the occult participants are more active and creative
   in their use of the Net.
-- It does at least support diversity.
-- In real life people may keep their occult interests out of sight of
   most people. The internet allows these people to anonymously show-off
   their interestes and try to build support for their particular flavour
   of tradition/religion/whatever. One's ego can become inflated when he
   sees how many other people in 'cyberspace' agree with his ideas. This
   is not limited to occult participants, but because of their relatively
   low profile in the real world they are probably more affected by this
   ego inflation.
-- Somewhat. I do think we tend to see it more as an opportunity to
   network and maintain an active community, whereas members of more
   mainstream subcultures are more likely using the topic of conversation
   for courtship rituals.
-- I think that most occultists see the Internet as a new frontier, a new
   world.
-- Certainly, most all aspects of our life are "different".
-- Yes, feel that they feel they are at home. We no longer have to worry
   if someone will do us harm simply because we are different within
   cyberspace. We can just exist.
-- Yes, Occultists are "used to" wandering around in different worlds,
   easier to treat it more like dimension than a tool.
-- I have hard many occultists refer to cyberspace as the astral world. So
   in that sense, I think they have a unique perspective on it.
-- I think some of them see the internet presence as an extension or
   expansion of themselves.

Have you ever thought that a lot of the pages you visit only mirror the
self-referential aspect of the participants? (e.g. "Hee, I am here, have a
look at these others who also say that they are here and link to my page
to say again that we all are here") (also: only-link pages)
-- The Thelemic Kaaba, the Thelemic Golden Dawn/O.A.I. and the Temple of
   Thelema pages come to mind; on the "Kaaba" page, Mr. xxx [name left
   out] proclaims himself the "chief of chiefs" of A.·. A.·. traditions;
   xxx [name left out] does the same with regards to G.·.D.·.; on the
   T.O.T./C.O.T. pages, xxx [name left out] implies rather the same thing
   as regards himself. Also, there are such pages as WWW.AMADO-CROWLEY.COM
   which doesn't seem to amount to much of anything [an entire server with
   only one page], or the Living Flame Camp of the Caliphate O.T.O. where
   two owners of the Page proclaim themselves to be "Babalon and the
   Beast/Anti-Christ". - I grow weary of such pages. - But, on the other
   hand, there are very good pages such as the "Smoking Dog Project" of
   the Caliphate O.T.O.'s Scarlet Woman Oasis, which presents much
   original work and research; or Adam McLean's Alchemy & Rosicrucian page
   which contains transcriptions of many [100+, I think] rare or obscure
   Alchemical and Rosicrucian documents for the sake of the Seeker.
-- I think it is part of the "campus" mentality of some of the
   participants, if we look on the professors and scholars homepages -
   they contain only bibliography and published papers, self-referential,
   yes - but they are not using the medium to make themselves the message,
   like many more "immature" participants.
-- Yes, most are junk.
-- Oh yes! That's why I'm a signer of the "Independent Web Manifesto". It
   is really important to resist the temptation of
   self-advertisement/aggrandisement via the web.
-- Yes, but one person's narcissism is another's brilliant reference.
-- Yes. People do not feel alone if they can point to others that agree
   with them. Cyberspace is a big support group for many people.
-- Some. In most cases I think it is an opportunity for persons to achieve
   self-expression, creativity, and self-advertisement which might
   otherwise be unable to do so, since not everyone can write a
   publishable book, etc. Also it tends to foster alternative and deviant
   points of view which might not command a large enough audience to be
   commercially viable.
-- No. I tend to find these pages extremely useful.
-- I  the links provided by interesting people to the places they
   find interesting ...
-- ... while they are an inconvenience to many of us to some they are life
   saving and very satisfying.
-- Yeah, I've seen a lot of sites that seem to be there for the sole
   purpose of giving the web-master (term used lightly) a reason to "be on
   the 'net". Though, in all fairness, many, many sites offer great
   information and provide a significant means to interact with others of
   like interests.
-- I think some editorial bias is showing through the phrasing of this
   question ... There is nothing wrong with a page that says "This is what
   I'm/we're about, any by the way, here are some other places to go for
   more information on that if it appeals to you as well."

Do you think that the presence of Occultism in the Net does support
creativity?
-- Absolutely. Maniacs are usually the most creative.
-- Mostly, yes, I think quarrels is creativity ...
-- Yes. Most occultists are free speech advocates, too.
-- YES. I believe it has resulted in a whole new interest in
   occultism/magick and therefore new material.
-- I've been in on-line, timed rituals, joined a group doing a serial
   writing of a book, a chapter per person, helped create a tarot deck the
   same way, and received a wealth of information from like-minded people
   I could never meet any other way or have time to spend with, including
   some of the real "biggies" of occultism.
-- Creativity, NO. Conformity, YES. When so many other people do it in one
   way they must be right. Therefore any individual thought one has must
   be incorrect. And if you do not accept that and actually say so then
   you may be told thousands of times that they are right and you are
   wrong, until you agree with them. ... But look at the books that are
   being published. Most occult books are regurgitation of other peoples
   work, usually Crowley, Golden Dawn and the standardized 'religion' of
   Thelema. Most say the same things with no individual thought in them.
-- It should be this way, but I think that we can find two kind of groups:
   one is open to new ideas, the other tends to spread its own doctrines
   and do not take open debates. But if you are really free, you should
   not expect creativity coming from the Net; rather you should be
   creative on your own, and take the chances from what you find on the
   cyberspace.
-- Define Occultism. Are you confusing Occultism with Pagan (of all
   countries in all it's forms) Religion? Need more information. (No
   offense, but you could use some practice in stating your questions more
   succinctly. They are way too ambiguous and general.)
-- I see no correlation between the three. There are creative occultists
   and non-creative occultists. There are creative non-occultists, and
   non-creative non-occultists.
-- Not necessarily. It's just another form of exposure.
-- I think it encourages the large majority of incompetents to feel that
   their opinions are on an equal footing with those of someone who
   actually knows something.
-- Occultism on the Net doesn't necessarily support or inspore creativity;
   I feel it's more of an exercise in freedom of expression.
-- I would like to see more original Works (occult), and less of the same
   stuff from site to site. (i.e. How many o.t.o. websites do we REALLY
   need?)
-- It is disappointing to see so little research of real value being made
   easily available.
-- Some of it does, and much others don't. It's a regurgitation of old
   theories that are going unquestioned.

In the case you maintain a website:
How many visitors do you have per month?
How many of them say only "hello", or "how fine", or "great"?
How much of them do comment on the information on your site, in an
explicit way?
How many of your visitors contribute with inspiring insights (that YOU
consider inspiring, as "really contributing" beyond the average
experience)?
If you are an organisation: how many of your visitors want to become a
member or just seek advice?
-- Perhaps one out of every four actually grok the nature of my site and
   speak about it, generating comments. Another one-fourth ask me for
   spells, and a third fourth tell me about fixes that they think I need
   to give my page. The last fourth says, "you are one of the coolest
   people I've ever met," which is an actual quote of an entire message
   that I received from some lonely person.
-- Most of the e-mail I get is from 1) people with similar views who want
   to see more of something in a specific area, 2) people who are opposed
   to what is their and disagree but still find insight within the
   website, and 3) people who ask questions which I answer and if enough
   questions are asked about a given subject then I try to add more
   information on that area.

 Date: April 1997

O.T.O. Phenomenon   navigation page   |    main page    |    mail

 

What's New ?    Introduction    The early O.T.O.    Carl Kellner    Memphis Misraim    O.T.O. Rituale    Fraternitas Saturni    Typhonian O.T.O.    Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica    The "Caliphate"    Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua   Spermo-Gnostics   Illuminati   Deutsche Seiten    David Bowie    Charles Manson    Anal Intercourse and the O.T.O.    Pictures + Documents    Voices of the O.T.O.    Books on the O.T.O.