I’m currently studying horary astrology under Chris Warnock’s supervision. He puts a great deal of emphasis on studying old sources, which is perfect for a guy like me who breaks out in hives when occultism is boiled down to “just wear a deep knowing expression, drink herbal tea and let the ascended masters guide your intuition.”

Geomancy is similar to horary astrology in that it allows you to answer questions, though it is less dependent on the time the question is asked. It is also similar in that you need to go back to really old books in order to study it seriously.

When reading premodern sources we always run a couple of risks:

1. Unless they’ve been edited and discussed by a modern, they are probably written in a language that is not our own, or, even if it is, it’s an old version of it. This makes room for misunderstanding.
2. More subtly, the world in which the author lived and wrote is not our world: it has different cultural, political and spiritual reference points.
3. The source is written by someone who is just as fallible as we moderns (or rather postmoderns) are.

If one thing that grinds my gears is when people just turn occultism into their little escape from reality (“I wanna believe the world is magical but I’m too special for Christianity”), the other thing that equally grinds my gears is when people desperately seek a doctrine to follow blindly just because it happens to run against the Zeitgeist.

An occultist (and divination is a branch of occultism, though we often forget it) must be capable of being equally distant from intellectual lassitude and fanaticism, from scientism and religion. It takes a particular temperament that most people don’t possess, and I say this in a neutral sense: most people simply don’t have the temperament for most things, which is why only few people in any generation do any one thing.

Point three on the list is what I’m referring to here. The few on the occult path who have what it takes to move beyond the sanitized, advertiser-friendly version of occultism that gets tarot readers invited to corporate meetings often run the contrary risk: that of believing “if something says the opposite of what we hear everyday in our decadent world, it must be true and I must worship at its altar.”

When reading old sources (and I’m talking about geomancy, but it could refer to any other branch) this can turn us into fanatics if we don’t constantly remind ourselves that a book, even in the old days, could be written for a variety of reasons:

1. to pass on important knowledge (but still from the author’s limited perspective)
2. to record your experience
3. to help others
4. as a publicity stunt
5. to impress others
6. to confuse others
7. a mix of all the above

Furthermore, old authors are just as capable as modern ones of believing crap. As such, while it is vital to question our own worldview, it is also just as vital to question all others. The moment you are asked (or you feel like you ought) to stop questioning is exactly the point where prejudice has crystallized, be it yours or someone else’s. It is also the point where you can break new ground if you proceed cautiously and with intelligence.

All this is to say, old books are treasure troves of information that we can study, learn from, adapt sensibly to our current needs, and much more. But if you are looking for a new Bible, you’re better off sticking to the old one.

MQS