The Great Arcanum (Book Review #101)

The Great Arcanum
John Michael Greer
Aeonbooks

Irrelevant preamble foreword and afterword all at once: 101, I was going to have this as a dustbin for all the books that should lodge with Oscar (Sesame St), but subjective behaviour is a fluctuating thing and thought it rude and best not to. As it happened, after writing this review, I think perhaps i’d view thisreview as superficial, unhelpful perhaps, so let this review be my 101’er.

Greer, sets out his camp early. The Cabala, is NOT jewish, well not originally, it’s Greek, it’s hellenistic, and some bits are chinese he offers. Strictly speaking, he’s not saying this for blood pressure raising brownie points. And, another thing he hastens to add… That A.E.Waite was a religious zealot, who translated Eliphas Levi’s work with a bent to shew the glory of the monothestic, Christian, theology. Oh, and refer to Levi’s original French book ( Here ) not the translation, he begs to demand of us…”unless you can get hold of a copy of mine” he then child cathchery seduces us with.
Normally I suppose I’d be pissed off about all this traffic directing and diversions and “I know best”. Having studied Sanskrit texts however, I understand how fluid and more poetic the original is, as perhaps any Muslim will tell you likewise regarding the Quran in the original Arab, et al. Translations after all are subject to cultural emphasis, isnt that right your majesty James.
Greer stands on a soapbox imploring us to know this and that, and a quick check on his bibliography reveals a prolific output which begs the question. Why havent I heard of him before and why isnt he writing for any of the ‘known’ publishers i’m familiar with, maybe he has.
This offering seems to be print on demand, maybe it isnt but the quality is that glossy harboard machined production effort, but i’m here for the content.
With regards to the history of Cabala, of which of course most ceremonial magic and certainly, obviously, Solomonic, stems from, well we can say regardless of where the mystics sourced their material, the first collated sources from the Zohar, from the 13th century, thousands of years after the Angel Metatron apparently gave the wisdom of Cabala to Moses, according to Mysticism. In fact see, Moses de León as reference to Zohar. The Sepher Yetzirah,is older than the Zohar, by a few centuries. We can of course speculate whether its beg borrowed or stolen from Aristotle, Plato, surviving fragments of charred papyrii from the library of Alexandria or from the bloke down the tavern. At the outset of these combobulations I’m not sure where all this besom sweeping is leading to.
Levi wrote Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie in 1854, as Greer states, and things were different then. Science has moved on, as has knowledge, and so too has our perception of both the outer universe and the inner quantum field. Indeed let me grab my besom to Greers synopsis, as knowledge becomes ever more logarithmically accelerated, it could be said our knowledge has in the last ten years alone progressed as much as our knowledge has in the hundred years between 1850 and 1950, relatively.
I am very dubious when blurb says, for the first time ever, or , now a more accurate rendition.
I don’t think we’re that stupid, we can see Eliphas Levi for what he is and when he was, just as we can forgive Dion Fortune for being ‘mightier than thou’, and Crowley for his self-aggrandizing narcissism, but what a theatre eh?
Greer’s book, follows closely or more exactly parallel with Dogma, expanding, berating and prodding us to question, which is good. But. I’m not actually sure what this is bringing to the table. Yes. Eliphas Levi had his own style, and things he describe maybe tainted with his own prejudices and culture and of his time. But, we can see that? cant we? do we need to be continually reminded.
I read chapter one, ‘The Initiate’ in Greers book, I read Chapter One of Eliphas Levi in Dogma… I didnt compare them, or analyse each paragraph side by side. Just read one, then the other.
I guess it’s like hearing a cover song, or maybe an adaptation of a play. And I’m still at a loss to understand what new inference this is bringing.
I think therefore I am.
I am that I am,
Existence precedes essence.
Other such notions for the existential warrior to muse over. This verb, that verb, this meaning and that. Compare. Translate. Why?
I prefer Socrate’s statement “I Know That I know nothing”, but Eliphas Levi doesnt use that analogy, because he’s touched by the light of the creative creator as Greer is touched by the mind of the exacting inquisitor.
………… the verb TO KNOW, which expresses learning, while, in place of the word SCIENCE, they have adopted that of GNOSIS, which represents simply the notion of learning by intuition. What, in fact, does man know? Nothing,…
Chapter 2 and Levi sticks two fingers up at me. I am now piggy in the middle, trying to decipher between Greer on one hand, and Levi on the other, weighing them both so that, as is the case of point in chapter two we reach an equilibrium.
So onto Chapter Three, I’ll read Greers, then Levi’s.
What I will/did conclude is simply that Gospels, the Zohar, and later occult writings should be read in their historical contexts rather than as repositories of a single concealed science, that is fixed, cast in stone.
And, again I wonder, do I need a book to tell me that, and retread the passages of that aracane script so I can be told how the song should, in the light of new knowledge, be sung?
Standing on the shoulder of Giants.
Repeating with glossier paint.
v 2.0.
New improved formula.
Eliphas Levi has his faults, yes. His Dogma however is a foundational work, even if it is in many parts speculative, do we need it rewritten? Greer’s work, rather than comparing, tracing and emulating would best be served if he just rewrote the whole book in his own way. We’d all know it was a rehash of ‘Dogma‘ but the constant referring to and nitpicking is frankly getting on my nerves.
Repeat. I read Levi’s chapter. I compare it with Greers.Repeat.
Have I learnt anything new that hitherto I wouldnt have worked out for myself? Are Levi’s obvious flaws so hidden and secret that no Occultist could detect? (bearing in mind an occultist is by nature–Someone versed in or practicing the “occult,” which comes from the Latin occultus, meaning “hidden” or “secret”.)
If we as seekers can not spot the mistakes however unintentional and however well meaning the author intended, we deserve our ignorance.
Levi’s ‘old fashioned’ values, and Blavatsky’s master race, and Fortune’s esoteric confidence as inner plane insight… all these things we can read, understand, dismiss, but not cancel or re-write, as they were appropriate then.
Things change but the old path was trodden. We dont really need to tarmac it over so it’s clear and easy to walk. Do we?
Greer’s work isnt bad, not in the least, its very well attested, it’s well written, As an exercise of study, to be fair, it has value, just as we can try and decipher manuscripts and old sutras. However, I feel Eliphas Levi’s work, for its faults should stand alone. Unmolested. Warts and all.
The second half of the book, The Ritual of High Magic, there is to be fair some insights that Greer provides worthy of a chin scratch and squint but as I suggest, it would be better if he had just written it as a full contempoarry book of The Doctrine and Ritual… without comparison or referal. That is my opinion.
It’s not a wasted excercise, it was good to revisit Levi/Waite and also the French original version of Dogma/Rituale version. I wouldnt call Greers work Groundbreaking, more Rockbreaking, penal treadmill sisyphean labour .
Greer has undertaken a task to in someway discredit and comment on Levi’s work, and offer us his opinions on how it should have been written, Just as, for example, I have done in this ‘Review’, and if you dont like what i’ve written, how, why or perhaps you feel i’ve missed key elements, then you’ll understand exactly why I’ve not been over enthused with this work, it’s not that I dismiss it, perhaps I dont feel it’s relevant, most foundational and influential texts and books have commentaries after all, or have been expanded, and certainly plagiarised.I’m not sure what to conclude. I try and sit on the fence and come to that greatest conclusion, equilibrium. As someone once said, “If you’ve got nothing good to say, Say Nothing. ” (The only reference online I can find as to who first said this Thumper from Bambi…FFS. ).
Get Levi’s Transcendental MAgic, yes, translated by Waite, even though Greer says its crap. Come to your own conclusion and insight.Comment yourself.