A Chaote Misunderstanding of Paradigms

For the purposes of this article, a paradigm is simply a model by which to understand reality. In
occultism, this tends to refer to the various systems or schools of thought that attempt to categorize
and explain various aspects of occultism, and sometimes reality as a whole. The concept is found in
many places outside of occultism, in the same manner to describe different models which seek to
explain reality.
A paradigm is fundamentally a collection of assumptions, that may or may not be supported by
empirical evidence. A paradigm shift occurs when one or more of the previous assumptions are
replaced for (usually) two reasons. The first is that what is observed or measured does match up with
one or more of the previous assumptions, making those assumption(s) illogical. The second is for
developing hypotheses, in a manner of, If I reject the previous assumption for this new assumption,
how would this change the previous model?, usually followed by testing to see if the new assumption
has any merit.
A commonly known example of the first is the shift from a geocentric (earth centered) model of our
solar system, to a heliocentric (sun centered) model. This shift largely occurred due to the motions of
celestial bodies being inconsistent with what was to be expected under the assumption that our solar
system was geocentric in nature.
An example of the latter can be found partially in the development of the theory of general relativity,
usually attributed to Albert Einstein. The theory's basic assumptions are that the measurements of
various quantities are relative to the velocities of the observers, that space and time should be
considered related to one another, and that the speed of light was still constant between observers. In
the early development of the theory, there was incredibly little empirical findings that went against the
previous assumptions of space, time, and velocities being independent... save for some minor
theoretical results by Lorentz, Michelson, and others. It was only through a rejection of the previous
assumption that the theory was able to be developed, and later tested through the results of Plank,
Minkowski and others.
What these later paradigm shifts entail is not simply believing something else. Rather, it is a
suspension of belief as to the truth of a previous assumption, in order to examine the implications of
such a change as to test and create a more accurate model that describes our universe. To illustrate this
point, return to the concept of general relativity. It has turned out to be a reliable model. In every day
life, the implications are not very significant to those who have to deal with relativity. In measuring
most macroscopic objects on the earth's surface, the relativistic corrections do not make a noticeable
change to the result, so they work good enough. However, when getting up to the scale of masses and
velocities that the relativistic corrections -do- make a significant difference, the change is severe.
Without taking relativity into account, your GPS devices would be many miles off due to the satellites
distant location from significant masses (earth), and has led to such problems as inaccurate
measurements in particle collisions, leading up to the fairly infamous faster than light spook.
The point of all of this, is that even by believing (which should be called pretending in the next
context) that the relativity doesn't exist model is true, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Your GPS will still objectively be many miles off, and particle colliders will still produce impossibly
inaccurate results.
This is where the chaote concept of shifting paradigms falls very far from the mark. It is often

assumed that somehow what is real changes based on what is believed, which has shown to be untrue
in every other context.
But my paradigm shifting magick still works!, is the obvious counterpoint. Assuming this is true, I
would point back two paragraphs ago, where many non-relativistic results appear good enough,
despite the objective existence of general relativity. Many occult paradigms are good enough to be
able to produce results on their own, even without pretending to believe in it. Although, it worked
because I pretended to believe in it is often the explanation... since this is not true for literally anything
else in reality, this doesn't seem to be a very solid explanation. What seems far more likely is that a
method that worked was simply good enough (in the previous fashions) in order to produce results in
its methodology, regardless of what the practitioner pretended to believe.
Let's take a hypothetical example of a various number of primitive tribes, only a half-step more
superstitious than the average occultist. They all want to make sure the sun rises the next morning, so
do rituals to make sure this happens. One tribe meditates in a circle, trying to use the power of their
thoughts to carry the momentum of the sun through the darkness until morning. Another one prays to
God every night that he will bring the sun back the next morning. The last one screams at the sun to
come back for hours.
In the morning, the sun rises. Which method worked? In one sense, all of them, and in a practical sense,
none of them. Rather, they all worked off a good enough mechanism (in this case, one that had
nothing to do with them, which also plays into various occult theories). However, many occult systems
can be understood in the same manner. If they are all close enough to the mechanisms which we
currently are empirically unaware of that allow for occult phenomena to be enacted, then it still
produces good enough results, fairly regardless of how much one believes in them.
The Chaote concept of paradigm shifting tends to be little different. You can scream at the sun, you
can call quarters, or masturbate to squiggles, or simply meditate... and as long as you/the system obeys
these yet to be understood fundamental mechanisms that allow occult abilities to work, you'll get
results, regardless of your belief in them.
However, similar to the formulation of general relativity, there is a real benefit in the suspension of
certain assumptions to try out different theories. In particular, there are a near infinite number of
assumptions that our own personal paradigms, consist of... the culmination of experiences, models,
and beliefs that govern how we perceive events, and reality as a whole. This becomes even more
relevant when taken in terms of theoretical frameworks, such as occult schools of thought, which don't
necessarily have a heavy empirical framework.
The benefit is not in pretending things you don't believe in are true, and leave it at that, though. An
article for another time, but pretending is completely dissimilar to a belief. If your beliefs can be
changed at a whim, they are not beliefs... it is mere pretending. However, by temporarily suspending a
belief in what you might assume to be true, particularly in regards to occult models, then those
assumptions can be tested in some formal or informal way against another assumption, particularly
where consciousness is concerned. The difference is not, I pretend to believe in Ra! Hey, you
hypothetically real-but-I-truly-don't-actually-give-a-shit-about-you entity!, but rather, What changes
does this make on my previous result if I incorporate these aspects into my practice? To clarify What
if this is true? it completely different from I pretend this is true!
The bottom line is, belief is irrelevant. Reality doesn't change based on belief, in any context. The only

changes that occur are in your own assumptions, ideally tested against how those changed assumptions.
With a slight amount of skill, different assumptions may or may not change the results of a given
practice, when compared against the results (perceived or objective) of previous practices. When
confronting incredibly basic assumptions, this could lead to a great amount of progress as to which
aspects are objectively true... but I don't want to give too many spoilers.