Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley/Archive 1

I moved the Art of chumbley to external links (Occult art gallery) as it is an external link. Also added a recent article discussing his life. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.1.195 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2005.

Is the criticism section in this page really approproate or accurate. I have studied this person in some detail and not come across any such criticisms of Chumbleys work. If it should remain perhaps it could be referenced. [30/03/06] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paolo sammut (talk • contribs).

It is not a case of criticism. It is a case of someone attempting to artificially create a magickal current without any magickal link to a genuine magickal/occult guide. Azoetia is a prime example of pretentious and ill conceived ideas passed off has a legitimate magickal current. Most of this was ripped off from chaos magick techniqiues, Qabbalah , thelema , and even Golden Dawn material. When you look at the final pages of the 2nd edtion of Azoetia you see a copy of the 231 gates taken from traditional Qabbalah. Witchcraft has no business with this. And the spiritual current will take steps to protect itself. This is evidenced in Chumbley's passing.The mistakes of the past are repeating themselves, just has Alex Sanders attempted to create a artificial current with Alexandrian Wicca , so Chumbley repeated the mistakes of the past in artificially creating Cultus Sabbati. It saddens me that his books have gained a reputation since they only have that reputation due to their high prices. And people inflating the books and Chumbley's reputation to sell them at a high price. With regard to his supposed "high standing " in the occult community, this is not the case. Only Wiccans seem to place Chumbley's work in high regard. Most occultist's and hermetic practioners see his work has a retread of Sanders mistakes and literally stealing large chunks of ideas from the Qabbalah and Chaos magick.


 * Um, er, everything you've written is exactly that, "criticism". It is also unreferenced, which means there's no evidence that this isn't just your point of view. I believe that's what the other editor's comment was getting at.
 * To speak to some of your points of criticism: I believe your concept of "legitimate" magical current and "genuine guide" may be ideosynchratic and not shared by the wider occult community. Chumbley's magick was no more "ripped off" or "artificial" than anything of the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Wicca, etc., etc. Secondly, witchcraft has business with qabalah if it wants. Witches are as witches do. Cunning folk in England (and their equivalents throughout Europe) were using qabalistic-derived, christian-derived, arabic-derived and anything-else-derived magic hundreds of years ago! If you're thinking of a specific flavour of witchcraft, with themes such as described by Carlo Ginzburg, then you need to name it. Thirdly, Chumbley's books were sold at comparatively low prices in private limited editions, and immediately went up in price for subsequent resales. Therefore it's meaningless to say their reputation is due only to their high prices. Fourthly, he does seem to have "high standing" in the occult community, simply because I've met a small but significant number of occultists who praise his work. Whether or not you personally agree with the pro-Chumbley occultists is another matter, and is not really of interest to Wikipedia. Fifthly, if you're going to speak for the wider occult community you need to cite some reliable sources to back you up. Otherwise we can't assume it's more than your personal opinion.
 * I note that I haven't read any of Chumbley's works, and have no opinion on them personally. It does sound like he's chanced upon some similar areas of research to myself, though, so I'd be interested to see them at some stage... Fuzzypeg ☻ 02:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok point taken. The first reference i wil give is over the use of the traditional Qabbaliah's 231 gates in the final pages of the 2nd edtion of Azoetia. This concept was originally published for the first time by the esteemed Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in his interpretation and translation of the Sepher Yetzirah (Weiser Books). Before Kaplan no one had ever published this before. The 231 gates is a technique used by very experienced rabbis to gain a closer relationship with G-D. This has absolutely nothing to do with Witchcraft and is a clear case of Plagarism. Simple. When you say that Witchcraft does have business with Qabbalah you are showing disrespect and ignorance to the traditon of Qabbalah developed over the centuries by Rabbis. ( Note not witches?) Secondly a large percentage of Crowleys Thelemic material is original and cant really be cited has plagarised from else where. All his thelemic rituals were of his own hand. So in that context you cant use that argument for Chumbley, who has clearly plagarised material like the 231 gates from a Jewish source ( Sepher Yetzirah : Kaplan)

The second point and reference is over the book Qutub. The book has 72 verses in it, and is clearly a plagarism of the Qabbalistic 72 divine names of the Shem ha-Mephorash. This is the 72 fold name of god taken from the christian bible (Exodus 14;19-21). Again this implies the parasitical nature in Chumbley's work of trying to pass off other legitimate spiritual traditions has his own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.218.206 (talk • contribs).


 * Greetings, I only recently became directly acquainted with Chumbley's work, though I'd heard of him for a few years past. Due mainly to the difficulty in obtaining his works (read: expensive) I would probably never have read anything of his had I not found pdf's of Azoetia and Qutub online.  Now, while I'm not quite as, shall we say, forceful about it as the original poster, I do have to concur that there really doesn't seem to be anything all that original about the work.  After my first glance through Azoetia it seemed nothing more than the whole withcraft meets AO Spare and Kenneth Grant. On the other hand, I will say that Chumbley was one hell of an artist with extreme potential, but even his art seems to have a bit too much of A.O. Spare.  What needs to be asked though is what constitutes a rip-off?  Adopting something for use doesn't constitute a ripoff, stealing and passing it off as original and intentional does.  A decade and a half or so when Wicca started to become really popular I remember picking up a book that contained "A powerful wiccan spell of the Pentagram, handed down through the ages" the author then proceeded to give the LBRP (with hebrew god names?!?!) Now thats a rip off. On the other hand Crowley created the "Star Ruby" is that a ripoff? I don't think so as I don't recall crowley ever  denying his ideas of pentagrams didn't originate with the GD.  Now what side of the fence Chumbley lies I'll leave up to those more familiar with his work, but I really don't think his work is worth the $1000+ price tag either.  Worlock93 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently I'm disrespecting the rabbinical Qabbalistic tradition by saying it can have anything to do with witchcraft. I note you spell Qabbalah with a Q, the common way of differentiating Hermetic Qabalah from Jewish rabbinical Kabbalah. Kabbalistic teachings ceased being the exclusive province of Judaism in the 15th Century or earlier. Pico della Mirandola and his followers such as Athanasius Kircher incorporated this Hebrew mysticism with Hermeticism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, Orphism and Egyptian mythology, and their writings influenced later occult manuals, and groups like the GD and Wicca. Some groups trace this cross-over from the Jews back even further to Abraham Abulafia, and other Kabbalists in medieval Spain who started teaching to gentiles after the Jewish orthodoxy banned them from teaching it to Jews. (I haven't yet established the historical validity of this claim though). If you want to put the Qabalah cat back in the Jewish bag you have to go back at least as far as the 15th century if not the 12th or 13th!
 * Not that that matters anyway. Witchcraft has a habit of using whatever is available and whatever works, and neither you nor I can make claims about the "correct" way to perform witchcraft!
 * Crowley had a nice writing style and could string two sentences together without using someone else's words. However I would not agree that "all his thelemic rituals" didn't show the strong influence of others before him, such as Levi and the Golden Dawn!
 * The number 72 (as others have pointed out) has been a number of importance in magical grimoires since the year dot. Be they Hebrew, Arabic or whatever, the number comes up again and again.
 * The whole western mystery tradition, and for that matter Judaism, Christianity and all other major religions are "parasitic". Does that mean they lack originality? Or that they recognise the power and wisdom of other previous traditions? Who knows? Who cares? Either way, Chumbley doesn't stand out from the crowd. Fuzzypeg ☻ 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article about Aryeh Kaplan: "Rabbi Kaplan once remarked: “I use my physics background to analyze and systematize data, very much as a physicist would deal with physical reality.”' I guess by this Qabbalist's definition of plagiarism, this Rabbi is a plagiarist, too. Physics does not belong with Qabbala as much as Qabbala does not belong with Witches. How dare he use one system to analyse and systemize data in another system! This elevates Chumbley to at least the esteem and status of Aryeh Kaplan using the Qabbalist's logic. Thanks, guy.

I've got 72 matches in my pocket right now, and I promise, they are not a rip-off of the Qabbalistic 72 divine names of the Shem ha-Mephorash. Cross my heart. They do, however, have something to do with a magical working.

The Goetia lists 72 daemons related to Lucifer. And they're not the Qabbalistic 72 divine names of the Shem ha-Mephorash, either. Wait a minute-maybe they are-Solomon was a Jew. Get a grip and get a life. And do some research. Your ignorance is showing.

The mysterymag article is a joke. Let it stand as testament to bad research, innuendo, and name dropping. 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)


 * Perhaps you could explain how or why it's a joke? What is factually wrong in it? It doesn't seem funny, it doesn't put him on a pedestal, it doesn't tear him apart, it just gives a rather detached description of his career and his books, mentioning their main contents and pointing out what his influences seem to be. If it's a joke, I don't get it. Fuzzypeg ☻ 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
There have been a number of criticisms levelled against Chumbley both in the article and in the discussion pages. The nature of these criticisms makes them sound like they're from a rival witch or witches who would like to promote their own brand of magic over his. I'm not particularly fussed about whether Chumbley was hot stuff or cold custard, but I am fussed if people try to remove information from an article to promote their own biases, prejudices or egos. Please read the Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view.

If you have any criticisms to make, please make them in terms of verifiable facts or else published opinions from reliable sources. For instance, if you want to say "Chumbley's magic was a hodge-podge of other traditions" you need to find a reliable source XXX who holds that opinion and say "XXX is of the opinion that Chumbley's magic is a hodge-podge of other traditions", and provide a reference. Otherwise they will be considered as original research and removed, and your time and spleen will have been wasted. Editing articles well is not hard, you just have to be willing to put a little effort into doing your research and citing your sources.

We take a particularly dim view to the removal of information from articles, such as the mysterymag link which is currently the only external link providing basic biographical details and analysis of his work.

Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog for personal attacks. We deal in research and facts, not opinions. Thanks, Fuzzypeg ☻ 02:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I should state immediately that I am not the person who made the most recent changes to this entry(10/30/06). The latest change (10/30) or removal of information has me thinking. There is no reference given for the former Spare "reference" and in truth I've looked for it after reading it here. I couldn't find it. I wonder at taking out the Chaos magazine attribution, but the further "reference" to Chaos influence within Chumbley's work has no verifiable attribution and is just sort of generally attributed to Chumbley's work. Hearsay and opinion. It should probably stay removed until a verifiable and authoritative source can be found. As a balance, Chumbley contributed quite a few articles to the Witchcraft magazine 'The Cauldron' over a period of at least 10 years. This has never been mentioned here. That magazine is still publishing and has been around for almost 30 years. I think the addition to the OTO membership instructive. Rather than have the removed bits unilaterally reinstated, I thought it might be helpful to carefully asses the removals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Chaos influences? Other problems with references

 * A quick web search confirms Chumbley's contributions to Chaos International; I'm adding   tags for the claim that Spare had recently used the term "Sabbatic", and the claim that there are Chaos influences in Chumbley's work. The source I've read just now (the Mysterymag article) names several influences from Spare (such as the Sacred Alphabet), but doesn't explicitly call them "Chaos". Thanks.
 * Adding citation needed tags is generally the first step in dealing with unverified information. It gives readers a chance to fill in the gaps for us, and means the information remains available, although it is clearly flagged as potentially suspect. Only in cases where information is obviously wrong or is potentially libellous (etc.) should material be directly removed.
 * A note for other researchers: if we can find sources who express opinions about Chumbley, can we make sure those opinions are presented as just that: opinions, and cited? That's how we should proceed to ensure the article presents a neutral point of view. I know there's info here already that isn't properly cited as opinion - I'm not sure I have time to clean it up myself... Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is-Spare is thought to be a Chaos practitioner by today's Chaots. He wasn't, of course-he called himself a witch and "Chaos" magic as it (can it be?) is defined wasn't around. I've never found a source wherein Chumbley said he was a Chaos practitioner. He does refer to himself as a witch and Cunningman, though. See his essay 'What is Traditional Craft' and the only known published interview with Chumbley, both originally published in 'The Cauldron' found on the web only at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Witches_Sabbath/ in their files.

Here is a direct link to an essay by Chumbley wherein he describes what he does as witchcraft and cunningcraft. I have never found any assertion by him of being a Chaos pratitioner. http://web.archive.org/web/20050307140707/http://www.occultartgallery.com/occultartgallery/cultus/cultus.html

The mysterymag article, when assessed for content comes up very short. It is simply reitterating hearsay and as the poster above pointed out is a lot of unnuendo. I see the name dropping in the "I almost might have met Chumbley once" bit at the end. Unfortunately, a lot about the article "just misses" as the author just missed meeting Chumbley. The OTO "left under a cloud" bit is surely gossip. Why on earth is it in the article with no attribution? There are no attributions or references given for anything in the article which makes it weak and rather 'sensationalist'. The author wrote a second sensationalistic article about Chumbley here: http://www.mysterymag.com/earthmysteries/index.php?page=article&subID=120&artID=572 An appalling play for fame on another's name, this article is "Little Rascals in a Churchyard" and Chumbley's name is attached with absolutely no reason except that he happened to live in Britain, it appears. This article clearly shows the intention of the author not to express an article of fact, but to produce an article to ride coattails to fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.74 (talk • contribs)


 * OK, what you say seems reasonable. The obvious solution regarding "Chaos influences" is to instead just say his work shows a lot of Spare's influences, and not mention Chaos at all, apart from stating that he contributed to Chaos International. Now regarding the mysterymag article, I'm still reluctant to remove it, simply because no-one has come up with a better option. As flawed as it is, it is still the only resource anyone has come forward with that gives any kind of independent biographical information or description of his work. Obviously it's a bit low on information, and there must be much better sources out there describing the man. You guys all seem to know lots about him, where have you got your information from? I don't want to see the mysterymag article removed until we have something better to replace it with, which from the way people here have been talking, shouldn't be hard. If we can't find other sources for information on him, we have to start wondering whether Chumbley is notable enough to warrant having an article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've added another citation already. Excellent. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The rub is that there are references, written by him, but they're tightly held by his estate and not made available on the internet-except through the egroup site listed above. It's a hallmark of Chumbley and much of this brand of witchcraft to stay out of the limelight. Those who know anything about the man aren't writing about him because 'it's not done'. This Mysterymag author actually has probably the best there is to offer about Chumbley outside of his inner circle.

If you want to delete his entry because he might not seem notable enough because he was private and preferred to have his writings speak for him, that's up to you. He was a very private man, uninterested in fame, and until someone in his inner circle breaks ranks and writes about him, you're not going to find much. I won't hold my breath. However, the fact that he was a private man doesn't change the fact that he was/is extremely highly regarded within the educated "elite" of witchcraft and you'd probably hear some howls about his removal. Hutton references him in his Triumph of the Moon-favorably. Hutton's a leading light in the educated "elite" in GB, as you probably know. Even Hutton was not allowed to investigate Chumbley's witchcraft world, though. Perhaps a bit in the Wiki article about Hutton's reference to Chumbley in his book might add notability? When all is said and done-who cares? Those who know, know and it doesn't matter whether Chumbley is included in Wikipedia or not in the end.

History will probably place his work within the level of Spare or Crowley, but only time will tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)

The term educated "elite" and Witchcraft really dont belong in the same sentence. Wiccans are spiritual parasites who steal from other traditions since they dont have anything to offer or give themselves. This is why a lot of Wiccans attempt to join hermetic and occult groups. This is reflected in Chumbleys work. The Xoanon books are the realisation of the spiritual and magickal failures of Wiccan based philosophy in Magick and the occult. Since Wicca has failed to provide any magical legitimacy, the Chumbley books are a timely reminder that a real magickal current cant be bought with money or artificially created from other peoples work. Chumbley's passing is a reminder to people who would do this to make a name for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.52.186 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL. You're welcome to participate in constructive debate; otherwise please take it elsewhere. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my suggestion of removing the article was a botched attempt at irony. If there really is so little information written about him (and it wouldn't actually surprise me, I know of other influential occultists who don't have any articles written about them) that just means it'll be a short article. And that's fine. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed involvement" with traditional Witchcraft
Gee, Fuzzypeg-"claimed involvement"? See edit re: Hutton. You're pushing me to actually write something of merit, well referenced here, aren't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)


 * I personally reckon there was traditional witchcraft in England, however Hutton's main thesis is that there never was, and that the various forms of "traditional" witchcraft were invented between the 1940s and 1960s, largely inspired by Romanticism, Margaret Murray, and the late 18th century occult revival. I think Hutton's full of it, but "claimed involvement" pays lip-service to him (since he's widely touted as the world expert on the subject)! I would like to see referencing in Wikipedia that's at least a little better than Hutton's. ;) Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Referencing difficulties with magic and occultism articles
The issue over the need for citations and references academically is difficult in Magick and the occult since Magick is subjective and cant really be verified in a academic context. In this context the moderators on Wikipedia are always going to have a problem with Occult postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.52.186 (talk • contribs)


 * Haven't seen too many problems yet. Remember this is an encyclopedia, built on an academic-style process. It's just not going to ever include certain facts that aren't verifiable by normal scholarly means. The only conflict I've seen between WP and occultists is when they haven't properly taken that on board. Once they do, they figure out how to use the system. The system has limitations, but these limitations are its strength. As long as no-one gets too precious about including their own unverifiable material it all works fine.
 * It's worth remembering that a lot of these more "shadowy" occultists never intended to be in the public eye.Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This article seems fully referenced now until someone adds more. See p. 306, 308 Triumph of the Moon, Hutton, where Chumbley refutes Hutton's assertion that there was no pre-reconstruction witchcraft. Hutton and Chumbley held each other in high regard, as evidenced in Hutton's introduction wherein he thanked Chumbley for his help with several chapters. 64.12.116.65 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shah/Daraul reference
I think there is a problem with reference #6. Shah's book should be referenced, but a discussion in the reference about an earlier work that is not mentioned or referenced in the article body is inappropriate. That can be in the Shah article.


 * I don't see why it's inappropriate? It's merely citing the source of the information. The source is Arkon Daraul (who is almost certainly Shah). If a reader actually uses the reference to look up the information (that's what they're for), and we've only cited Daraul, then they will probably never realise Daraul's actual identity, which is important in evaluating the work. Similarly, if we only cited Shah, then they would find that Shah apparently is merely quoting the work of another author, which is similarly misleading. It's unfortunate that we need the extra complication there, but if Shah didn't play silly-buggers we wouldn't have to do it. It's not uncommon to find lengthy notes in the notes section — that's what it's for, items of information useful to researchers that shouldn't clutter the main article. It is a minute cost in terms of cluttering the article, and it adds a lot of value for researchers. Look at some of the notes in, say, Wicca or Freemasonry, and you'll find plenty of lengthy notes. I'm going to restore it. Fuzzypeg ☻ 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Only Shah is referenced in the article. Any discussion of Shah pseudonyms is inappropriate on Chumbley's article. That belongs in Shah's article. If investigators are misled by Shah's references, it has absolutely nothing to do with Chumbley and should not be cited on Chumbley's page but instead pursued on Shah's page. Daraul's identity in evaluating Shah's work is Shah's problem, not Chumbley's. Chumbley only referenced Shah. It's not Chumbley's "responsibility" to help investigators figure out Shah's pseudonyms, so why is this on his page?

Also, I made the Eliade reference in the article, as well as most of the others. Then it was changed implying that the Eliade reference makes a clear correspondence between Chumbley's work and gnosticism/tantra, which it does not. As I wrote the sentence is as far as correspondence can be made with that reference. If the sentence is changed, the reference will have to be removed and/or a new one made. If the person who changed the sentence insists on the change, he will have to provide his own reference. I'll lay odds that the person who changed the sentence is not familiar with Eliade's book or how I made the reference correspondence. Shoo! Go do your own research! Hands off mine!70.106.245.190 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember that anything you submit to Wikipedia ceases to be in any way "your" property. It might be hacked and changed beyond recognition by other editors. That said, if Eliade doesn't make a comparison with gnostics and "left-hand tantrists" (whatever they are), then that comparison shouldn't be made in the article. Basically, any analysis appearing in the article should be from a reputable source, not from one of the editors (in which case it would be what's known Wikipedia-speak as original research). Sorry, by the way, for messing up the Eliade spelling. Editing in a hurry and not proofreading properly...
 * Regarding the Shah/Daraul citation: No, it's not Chumbley's "responsibility" to advise researchers about wierdo neo-sufis' fake identities. However it is our responsibility as WP editors to do exactly that, if it's relevant to the information we're giving. This is not a matter of taking a poke at Chumbley, but of providing clear and useful citations. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it's no longer "my research" once posted. My point was/is that when it was changed, it was no longer a valid reference. The person who changed the sentence did not know the reference and therefore the change was done out of ignorance, not research. That's why I said, shoo!

By the way, Henry Corbin is much better for referencing Chumbley's work, but Chumbley only recommended Corbin publicly on now long defunct egroups and there's no referencing it now. And Chumbley never used his own name in egroups. 64.12.116.65 22:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Syncretic" vs. "eclectic"
I have a problem with the word syncretic describing Chumbley's philosophy. Syncretic means "reconciliation of conflicting (as in religious) beliefs", "syncretism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 10 Nov. 2006). Chumbley's philosophy was not syncretic/involving conflicting beliefs within his philosophy. His philosophy involved a reconciliation of beliefs that heralded from a common thread, (see any Eliade book to make correspondences) not from conflicting beliefs.

Eclectic describes Chumbley's philosophy much better than syncretic; "selecting what appears to be best or true in various and diverse doctrines or methods : rejecting a single, unitary, and exclusive interpretation, doctrine, or method : of or relating to eclecticism : "eclectic." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 10 Nov. 2006).

So, if the person who changed the word eclectic to syncretic can give references refuting Eliade's body of work supporting Chumbley's eclectic philosophy, the word might be better changed. This is why I have returned the wording to eclectic. 70.106.245.190 04:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Merriam-Webster is written from a rather judeo-christian perspective whereby different religions are seen as "conflicting" merely because they're different. Being somewhat more acquainted with mystical approaches, we understand that many of these mystical schools of thought have no "conflict" with each other, and respect each other as valid paths. However the combining of elements from different religions that normally remain separate is properly termed 'syncretic'. This is a neutral word, and to my mind a nicer one than "eclectic", which for me evokes "eclectic Wicca". It's a small point though, and I'm not really concerned either way. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Syncretic/eclectic, Choas influences?, how Chumbley referred to himself
Greetings, It was myself that changed 'eclectic' to 'syncretic' - I have done some minor work on the article but forgot to log in - apologies for that. I hear what you're saying re Eliade, but I don't think it necessary to refute his body of work to make such a change. Thanks for typing out the definitions from Webster; I favour Chambers and Oxford. My rationale being that if you practised those disparate forms of religious belief simultaneously, you would likely find some conflicts in the way you applied your belief. What Chumbley's system apparently achieves is a re-alignment and consequent harmonization of systems in the context of practice. The whole thing might be better phrased as, "his method of gathering was eclectic, the system/philosphy he designed is syncretic." Can you see the difference? The reference in the article refers to Chumbley's philosopy, does it not? - not to Chumbley's means of creating that philosophy.

I'm surprised that the reference to Chaos Magic stays in - Chumbley had nothing but disdain for Chaos Magic; his articles were published in 'Chaos Int.' because the editor was impressed by Chumbley and his work while one or two other London-based mags had not become aware of him. 'Chaos Int.' was at the time issued four times a year, and punctually, while others such as 'Starfire' once a year if they could manage it. It was simply a question of the editor 'snapping him up' before others could. It is very difficult indeed to discern any CM influence in Chumbley's work; there are parallels between some of his strategies and those to be found in Pete Carroll's books which were available prior to 1992 (when Azoetia was published), however I think it is far more accurate to say that both Chumbley and Carroll were following a modus operandi established by Aleister Crowley.

By the way, Spare did not describe himself as a 'witch'; his article 'Mind to Mind and How', which was intended for magazine publication, was to be credited 'by a Sorcerer'. All other attributions can be traced to the works of Kenneth Grant. You'll look a very long way to find Spare labelling himself in magical terms at all; to the best of my knowledge, apart from that somewhat ironic article credit, he did not.

Thanks for your fine work Fuzzypeg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reineke (talk • contribs)

Hello;

No, I don't agree that Chumbley's philosophy is/was syncretic, or "a flagrant compromise in religion or philosophy: eclecticism that is illogical or leads to inconsistency: uncritical acceptance of conflicting or divergent beliefs or principles" as syncretism means. Surely you know that Chumbley not only had an unusual grasp of words and meaning, he also chose his words very carefully. He was also very critical of all that syncretism implies. He had very high standards, was extremely precise in his magical structure and could back up everything he did with critical standards of correspondence.

Syncretic is not the right word to express Chumbley's philosophy. And yes, I do understand the difference between Chumbley's method of gathering and his philosophy, thank-you. Fuzzypeg pointed out that eclectic reminds him of the syncretic co-option of the word by fluffies. That is a shame, and perhaps the word has lost its luster through association. But surely something other than syncretic would be a better description of Chumbley's philosophy. LulubyrdLulubyrd 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the above quote from (about "flagrant compromise", "illogical", "inconsistency")? It seems to have been written by someone with little grasp of the English language. "Syncretism" does not have these negative connotations. It simply means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" or "the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms" (Merriam-Webster online). Whoever wrote what you quoted above is probably barking up some fundamentalist monotheism tree. "Syncretism" is in fact precisely the right word to express Chumbley's philosophy, as well as that of most Western occultists. I don't really mind which word you use, but lets not redefine the English language in the process of choosing! Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fuzzypeg. Here is where I got the definition. Main Entry: syn·cre·tism   Pronunciation Guide Pronunciation: sikrtizm, sink- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): -s Etymology: New Latin syncretismus, from Greek synkrtismos federation of Cretan cities, from synkrtizein to unite against a common enemy 1 : the reconciliation or union of conflicting (as religious) beliefs or an effort intending such; specifically : a movement of a Lutheran party in the 17th century led by George Calixtus seeking the union of Protestant sects with each other and with the Roman Catholic Church 2 : flagrant compromise in religion or philosophy : eclectricism that is illogical or leads to inconsistency : uncritical acceptance of conflicting or divergent beliefs or principles3 : the developmental process of historical growth within a religion by accretion and coalescence of different and often originally conflicting forms of belief and practice through the interaction with or supersession of other religions 4 : the union or fusion into one of two or more originally different inflectional forms

Citation format for this entry:

'''"syncretism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (15 Nov. 2006).'''


 * Ha ha, don't I look stupid! I guess I'm used to hearing the term in anthropological contexts, where it doesn't have any negative connotation. Well, I can't argue with that. Sorry for ranting. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't look stupid, Fuzzypeg. You look knowledgeable and passionate. Not bad for a Fuzzypeg...(this coming from a Lulubyrd)I should have made the attribution in the first place.

Continuing references to Chaos

 * I, too am surprised that the Chaos opinions were allowed to stay. There is no reference and it's opinion. I removed the 'coined names' reference. Oh? I've read that Chumbley made up words that I've found easily in an unabridged dictionary. Opinion, again. I removed the reference to Grant/Spare and the Sabbatic Prayer. That's also opinion and speculation. Chumbley himself tells where it came from in his quote in the article. Any other reference or assertion is speculation. Just because both terms include the same word does not mean that one references another. I removed the comment about a witch-cult. It looked like that was what Chumbley asserted and it was certainly not alluded to in the interview that this addition was attributed to. What is a Witch-cult, anyway? Something like "left hand" Tantra?
 * Yes, thanks, Fuzzypeg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)


 * By the way, why is Chaos International magazine highlighted as a magazine in which he published? His earliest article/s were not in that magazine, and once he found others he abandoned that magazine, too. Elsewhere in the article it says he published in magazines-or at least it did many edits ago. Without resorting to a list of credits, why highlight just one? It draws speculation regarding his having Chaos leanings-which end up having to be removed because they're not referenceable. Rather than draw Fuzzypeg's ire by removing the bit (it's been there a while, like a pet), I thought it might be thrown out here for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Assertion of Nigel Pennick connection?

 * Just checking... I removed this strange assertion from the article [a reference to the work of Nigel Pennick on East Anglian magic] because Pennick's Secrets of East Anglian Magic was first published in 1995. The Azoetia was first published in 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)