| Author |
Message |
zain |
|
Post subject: Book Review : Magia Sexualis by Hugh B Urban.
 Posted: Mar 19, 2008 - 07:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
|
Magia Sexualis : Sex ,Magic, and Liberation in Modern Esotericism, By Hugh B Urban ( University of California Press 2006)
The author of this book is associate Professor of Religious Studies at Ohio State University. His two previous books were on Tantra & Colonial Bengal.In the introduction (p2) Urban states his intention to "examine the rise of Sexual Magic in America and Europe since the ninteenth century, placing it within its larger historical, social and political contexts. Whether his book has done this is open to interpretation. He attempts to put Sexual Magic in contrast to the writing and the ideas of the French philosopher Michael Foucault ( in that , in the west sexuality was repressed to the point of extreme.) and showing that this repression gave rise to the development of sexual magic has a reflex action on the collective subconscious level.
Crowley gets attention in Chapter four: "The Beast with Two Backs. This is where Urban either is seeking controversy in the hope of making a name for himself off the back (no pun intended) iof Crowley or he really hasnt got a grasp of Crowleys writngs and depth. On P126 Urban attempts to assert that Crowley's knowledge of Tantra was minimal and flimsy : I quote : "Crowley frequently either misunderstands or simply reinterprets Tantra for his own purposes" Also Urban again misinterprets Crowley and takes issue that Crowley added an "extra" set of Chakras at the base Chakra, the anus and the prostrate gland. In Urbans eyes this seems to be a "mistake" on Crowleys part. This is where academics can get the wrong end of the stick when it comes to magickal occult matters, in that they are not in any postion to make a qualified judgement on what is right or wrong in practice. So when an academic sees something that doesnt fit their academic criteria they just stonewall it without any flexibility. Again this comes to attention on p133 when Urban asserts : " Crowley seems to have regarded women as rather limited and ultimately expendable companions in Spiritual practice" And again on p134 : " He was moreover notorious for his psychological and physical exploitation of women". Again this not a academic fact but Urban seems to be passing this off has fact. And then on P135 Urban argues that Crowleys rituals and magickal practice were :"usually quite androcentric,arguably misogynistic , and exploitative of the female body." Again this is Urban passing off personal comment has fact without any material to back this up. In the summary of the chapter Urban put across a very weak flimsy argument that : " his own relentless quest for transgression and his preoccupation with masturbation, sodomy and self defilement show that he was never really able to transcend the taboos of his victorian childhood". Is Urban serious? Did he even read the work he done with the Scarlett women?
Chapter 6 deals with Neo Paganism and, Feminism and Goddess worship n the 20th Century. For some reason Urban seems taken by Starhawk and her writings, but there is no depth in Urbans use of a sociological argument that this was more a political movement than a spiritual one. Chapter 7 deals with the place of Satanism . This is a weak chapter relying too much on the Vaudeville theatrics of Anton LaVey. Urban doesnt seem to be able to use the historical references he cites to back up that this type of "Satanism" is an evolution in Sexual Magic.
Chapter 8 brings us up to date with Chaos magick. But again he fails to argue effectively that the modern Chaos pacts that were created by Sherwin & Hine are a form of Sexual magick. Urban uses lots of sociological references to argue his point on Chaos Magick, but the writing is weak and stretches points that could have been used in earlrier chapters. (Did he even consider that Chaos Magick could even be asexual?)
In the conclusion Urban uses the term "Post-Orgy World" (P255) to argue his point that "Magia Sexualis" isnt really about transcending spiritually, but from his limited viewpoint that its more a "reaction" to the sexual restrictions placed on people especially in the west. In one way he is right. But because of his lack knowledge of occult matters his point and argument are a bit one sided and only show half the picture. In way that sums up the recent fashion of so called academics attempting to hijack the occult for their own ends and agenda.
Summary : Urbans writing and arguments are flawed in a number of places and his attempts at painting Crowley has "repressed" really pushed the limits of credibility. Below average.
2 out of 5. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
bazelek |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2008 - 09:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Somerset, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Sadly, the section on Spare seemed shallow and derivative...
bazelek |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
oneiros |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2008 - 09:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
|
Yeah right on - boo hiss to the academics, rotten scoundrels. Any academics in particular, or just this one?
Quote: › Urban attempts to assert that Crowley's knowledge of Tantra was minimal and flimsy : I quote : "Crowley frequently either misunderstands or simply reinterprets Tantra for his own purposes"
He may have a point there - it has been argued very persuasively that Tantrikas in India have themselves frequently (though not exclusively) either misunderstood or simply reinterpreted Tantra for their own ends. So Crowley could have been out of step if he hadn't.
You could have got a cool punning byline out of this, Zain, like "Urban Myths" or "War begins in the mind of Hugh B Urban".
o |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2008 - 09:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
|
| Its good to keep an eye on what the academics write concerning the occult. Cause it always gets used has ammunition by people with an axe to grind, one way or the other. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
oneiros |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2008 - 11:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
|
Absolutely spot on - I remember a guy called Redblossom saying almost exactly the same thing.
o |
_________________
Q: And Thelemites?
A: And Thelemites.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
IAO131 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 19, 2008 - 11:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 09, 2007
Posts: 265
Status: Offline
|
|
What evidence do people have that Crowley actually met even one 'Tantrik' let alone understood their secrets? Or do they just take it a priori that he did...? Crowley never really asserts much of anything about Tantra or Tantric anything. It is Grant that puts the huge emphasis on it.
IAO131 |
_________________
* Journal of Thelemic Studies *
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
bazelek |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2008 - 12:00 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Somerset, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
IAO131 wrote: › What evidence do people have that Crowley actually met even one 'Tantrik' let alone understood their secrets? Or do they just take it a priori that he did...? Crowley never really asserts much of anything about Tantra or Tantric anything. It is Grant that puts the huge emphasis on it.
IAO131
Almost verbatim from Urban's blurb... 
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeV/Unleashing_the_Beast.htm
I agree with Urban in that it seems extraordinary if AC does not mention Woodroffe once. It seems absurd he was not familiar with his works...
bazelek |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
oneiros |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2008 - 12:24 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › I agree with Urban in that it seems extraordinary if AC does not mention Woodroffe once. It seems absurd he was not familiar with his works...
bazelek
Well, he could have been keeping it under his hat, for some reason - ? Grant indicates that Crowley also leaned on Massey, but without crediting him. I have no idea of the source for the latter assertion, but it's there somewhere. But it could all be a Grantism I suppose.
o |
_________________
Q: And Thelemites?
A: And Thelemites.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
bazelek |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2008 - 12:47 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Somerset, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
oneiros wrote: › Well, he could have been keeping it under his hat, for some reason - ? Grant indicates that Crowley also leaned on Massey, but without crediting him. I have no idea of the source for the latter assertion, but it's there somewhere. But it could all be a Grantism I suppose.
Mmm, plus it's a bit hard to pitch yourself as the sole importer if you refer openly to the competition? It's simply not good business.
bazelek |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ianrons |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2008 - 02:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 684
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
| Well, if you compare, e.g., Crowley's translation of "pranayama" (prana + yama = "breath control") with Woodroffe's dismissal of that translation (prana + ayama ="breath length/rising/extensity/expansion") I think there may be reason to suspect that Crowley wasn't familiar with Woodroffe. There's also stuff like the complete absence (to my recollection) of "apana", and so on. Other aspects of Crowley's yoga teaching are highly suspect, of course, even basic things like siddhasana and vajrasana, which Crowley performed most bizarrely (clearly relying on a description in one of the 2 yoga reference books he always cites). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
gurugeorge |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2008 - 11:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Posts: 208
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I think from Urban's point of view he's trying to "place" Crowley in the context of a sociological phenomenon. From Urban's point of view, someone like The Omnipotent Oom was a more important contributor to that phenomenon, as also Woodroffe, and Crowley is more marginal.
I like Urban's books, there are loads of interesting nuggets in them.
But far better than Urban on these matters, and far more revelatory from the point of view of Thelema, is David Gordon White. His investigations of early Indian Tantric literature show that the original way Tantra was understood was as a strictly magical and strictly royal (i.e. restricted to rulers and their consorts) practice involving wishing on conjoined sexual fluids.
What a surprise!
(IOW the highbrow mystico-philosophical stuff came later. Originally Tantra was that very peculiar "kingly art" one might have thought was the invention of bored late-19th century sexual dilettantes.  ) |
_________________
"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Walterfive |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 20, 2008 - 04:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Posts: 207
Location: 13th Floor Elevator, Enron Hubbard Bldg. Houston, Texxas
Status: Offline
|
|
| Pity he couldn't have come up with an original title. Magia Sexualis, Magica Sexualis, and Magicka Sexualis have all already been published, IIRC, this will just add to the confusion... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
hurban |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 19, 2008 - 02:19 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
|
|
Well, I guess I should be flattered that anyone at all has read my book.
I thought maybe I should weigh in here, since I am the author of Magia Sexualis. It seems to me that many of those posting here have not seriously read my book, so I invite you to do so and write to me personally if you have specific questions or comments. I was really struck by the fact that the site's review and so many comments focused on my status as some "elite scholar" in an "ivory tower" in contrast to the "real practitioners". Did it ever occur to anyone that one could be both? Isn't it possible that one could be both a serious student of Crowley, Randolph et al, and someone interested in larger social, political, historical contexts and theoretical issues? It seems to me that this is quite in keeping with Crowley's own intellectual spirit.
A very common mistake in book reviews is to critique an author for not writing the book you would have written, rather than trying to understand what the author is actually saying and then evaluating the book on those grounds. This review largely misunderstands and misrepresents many of the book’s arguments. In places, the reviewer just plain gets things wrong and distorts what the book actually says. The book is not intended to be an exhaustive history of sexual magic, but simply an analysis of a few key figures and the recurring link between sexual magic and a larger ideal of social and political liberation that runs through western culture from the 19th century to the present. In that sense, yes, this particular book is largely interested in social, cultural and historical questions. But I do not believe it is dismissive of any of these figures or denies the possibility that their experiences were real.
To me, that doesn't seem like some elite "ivory tower" view of these people, but simply an honest appreciation for who they were as human beings enmeshed, like the rest of us, in complex social and historical circumstances.
But I do appreciate the interest in the book and am always open to serious intellectual discussion and debate, so if you would like to pursue the conversation, email me: urban.41@osu.edu
best regards,
hugh |
Last edited by hurban on Apr 19, 2008 - 10:39 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 19, 2008 - 02:22 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 2388
Location: Oxford, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Hugh,
Welcome to LAShTAL.COM.
Paul |
_________________
Paul
Owner & Editor
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 19, 2008 - 04:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Hugh,
hurban wrote: › Well, I guess I should be flattered that anyone at all has read my book.
I thought maybe I should weigh in here, since I am the author of Magia Sexualis. It seems to me that many of those posting here have not seriously read my book, so I invite you to do so and write to me personally if you have specific questions or comments. I was really struck by the fact that the site's review and so many comments focused on my status as some "elite scholar" in an "ivory tower" in contrast to the "real practitioners". Did it ever occur to anyone that one could be both? Isn't it possible that one could be both a serious student of Crowley, Randolph et al, and someone interested in larger social, political, historical contexts and theoretical issues? It seems to me that this is quite in keeping with Crowley's own intellectual spirit. One of the things that disturbs me about some contemporary individuals who claim to follow Crowley is the imposition of a weird kind of Crowleyian fundamentalism that is quite the opposite of what he seems to have intended and is ultimately no better than any other sort of fundamentalism -- most of which he himself fiercely opposed.
Yes, I am critical of Crowley in certain respects. Yes, I think he was a chauvinist, an anti-Semite and an Orientalist. So what? In the context of late Victorian England, that's not a particularly radical thing to say about any of these fgures. But I do think he was quite brilliant in other regards. So is it so controversial to say he was a complex figure whose ideas were complicated and compromised by his social, historical context? And the same goes with the other figures I discuss in the book -- they were amazing, fascinating people with astounding ideas, who were also deeply conflicted and compromised by their social, political and historical circumstances
To me, that doesn't seem like some elite "ivory tower" view of these people, but simply a very real and honest appreciation for who they were as human beings.
But I do appreciate the interest in the book and am always open to serious intellectual discussion and debate, so if you would like to pursue the conversation, please email me: urban.41@osu.edu
best regards,
hugh
Welcome. I think that the gist of the less than warm reception to your book in this forum was the perception that you may not have personally practiced the various sexual technologies of which you write. Have you done so?
93 93/93
Camlion |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
hurban |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 19, 2008 - 11:18 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Posts: 2
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › Welcome. I think that the gist of the less than warm reception to your book in this forum was the perception that you may not have personally practiced the various sexual technologies of which you write. Have you done so?
That's a question of a private nature that I don't think is appropriate to answer in a public forum. But you can email me if you like. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 1° 
: 
in 15° 
: Anno IVxvi 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
