In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

irony is signaled by the relative absence of what Booth refers to as reconstructive cues. Given the double-edged sword of irony and the reversals it threatens , it would seem that maintaining authority among a group of initiates commits the ironic occultist to perpetual re-signi¤cations and ironies in his or her attempts continuously to circumscribe the symbolic maps that are constitutive of the life experiences of initiates. In other words, precisely because of the commitment to extratextual, transcendent truths that form the primary philosophical basis of occult belief systems, any attempt to establish authority and maintain an inner circle by means of a rhetorical blind sets in motion a chaining of signi¤cation. In part, this logic of ¤gurative regress helps to explain why Crowley was so proli¤c, for he had to keep moving the target of the signi¤ed to maintain control, so to speak, a continuous widening of the textual circle to manage ¤gurative instability.74 Language, in this respect, is beyond control. Occultism Is to Class . . . The problematic dynamic of intertextual reference that challenges Crowley can be redescribed in terms of “the paradox of authority.” According to a number of analytical philosophers and argumentation scholars, the paradox of authority is found in any belief system that encourages and rei¤es the sovereignty of the individual, such as the democratic state: “Authority is the de¤ning mark of the state in that it is the state which has the right to rule. Autonomy is the primary obligation of man insofar as he may regard himself as the author of his own decisions and hence morally responsible. But if man has a continuing obligation to achieve the highest degree of autonomy there seems to be no way to establish the moral force of the legitimacy of submission to the commands of the state.”75 Magickal systems are very good examples of this paradox. On the one hand, occult authorities urge the absolute autonomy of followers (Crowley insists, e.g., that his “reader knows all about the subject better than I do myself, and may like to hear it tackled from a novel angle”).76 Yet on the other hand, occult authorities are adamant about their authority in prophetic terms (“the Secret Masters chose me!”). The continual creation of text after text rife with ironic blinds and terminological ambiguity could be described as an attempt, unconscious or not, to navigate this paradox. The textual occurrence of the paradox of authority is connected to the social realm of discourse formally in terms of the relationships the death of the modern magus / 165 that are implied between the author or rhetor and his or her audiences . This connection, the ironic knot between textual content and social form, is the place where Burke’s dialectic of irony helps to extract us from the fetishistic pull of a discrete text. One way to characterize an understanding of this formal movement is in terms of the movement between the “text” and “context.” Whereas the instability of occult irony threatens the legitimate authority of the occult rhetor or author among the seekers of esoteric wisdom (text), the discriminating functions of occult authority risk resentment from those excluded in the larger community (context). Crowley’s exclusions led to a radical re-signi¤cation of his persona in the popular imaginary in ways that formally mirror the instability of his textual ironies. The reason one is able to observe this interesting relationship is, as I have suggested, the mass media. Mass-media portrayals of Crowley accelerated , in a hyperbolic manner, the politics of irony on a larger, social scale, so much so that Crowley has become the “wickedest man in the word,” the patron saint of all that is evil, and the appointed messenger of Satan on earth—hence the ironic sacri¤ce of babies metamorphosed into a reality of “unspeakable” evils in the projected “life” of Crowley. A brief description of his portrayal in tabloid magazines and newspapers highlights Crowley’s inability to maintain control of his intended meaning. Crowley’s penchant for dissimulation, coupled with his observable public behavior, gradually intensi¤ed his sensational portrayal in papers like American Weekly, John Bull (England), and the San Francisco Call. The European papers, for example, were particularly unkind. After having performed a ritual in London to which many reporters were invited, Crowley’s cadre of followers was described as a “blasphemous sect whose proceedings conceivably led themselves to immorality of the most revolting character.”77...

Share