Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Defining Magic

21:08 / 29.06.03

This is a followup to a few posts I've been bandying around the forum in probably inappropriate places, specifically on the one about talking about magic to the uninitiated, and thought it would be best to start its own thread. Here's the original query
"I went on about this briefly in another thread (which effectively put a stake in the heart of the conversation, but there we go), but what are we talking about when we say magic? Forget this person who knows nothing about it (unless this is going way off topic, if so, I apologize and will retreat), how are we explaining magic to each other? Is magic the attempt to contact and intigrate with the Godhead? The dealing with paranormal spirits? The Frazerian laws of association and sympathy? A Jungian way of dealing with subconscious archetypes and concepts? The underlying linguistic structure of religious cosmologies? I sortof get the impression taht people are on the same page on this board when they talk about magic, as the word is bandied around with a good deal of impunity with the apparent assumption that people know what's being talked about, but I'm not sure which page this is? Is there a working definition that people have agreed on in order to facilitate discussion? What are people's assumptions when the word magic comes up? Sorry if I've led this thread to a bloody death as well. Feel free to talk around me."

So what wre peoples general opinions? How do you defie magic? What sre its perimeters, and what is magics primairy goal? Is it the alteration of reality in accordance to the will? A spiritual science? What are the imediate associations that come to mind when you think of magic?

21:30 / 29.06.03

There is a potency that affects possibility in a manner that human beings call luck, or randomness, meaning that it is out of human control, from the minor to the major degree depending in the environment, context, cultural frames, whatever. This potency is, however, affected by human consciousness, whether this is recognised or not.

Magick is the process of realising how consciousness affects possibility, and then actively participatng in it.

Of course, the possibility of what can be achieved magickally, are the magickian's own boundaries of possibility.

22:44 / 29.06.03

Then the summoning of spirits, gods, etc doesn't fall within the realm of magic, unless they're being used to affect possiblity and chance? Or such less active magic arts such as the study of Kabbalah (which is simply the study of the conceptial relationships of G-d's cosmos) Or alchemy, for that matter, which concerns itself with what it believes to be objective physical and metaphysical relationships? How about prophecy? Is their a distinction between magic and the occult? (one perhaps being the active component of the others passive study). Just playing devil's advocate here.

12:39 / 30.06.03

It all has to do with possibility. You see, all that you mention are human possibilities of experience or knowledge, meaning that they can happen to, or be executed by, just about any human being.

Magick is a way for narrowing down chances. There is a chance that gods or spirits may or may not present to a human being, always, at any time, at any place. Through magick you narrow the chance down for it happening.

As for studying kabbalah and things, I don't count studying as being inherently magickal, from this perspective. I mostly use an operative and practic definition like the one I gave.

20:33 / 30.06.03

Really though, talk of the M word in a place like this encompasses the lot of it, from chicken guts to planatary invocations. If its not science, its magic. It is helpful to use more specific terms to describe what you mean by it, but lacking that "magic(k)" is a useful catchall for the paranormal in general, as it relates to human tinkerings with it.

20:50 / 30.06.03

For me the term "magic(k)" has pretty specific meanings as it applies to my own personal orientation towards the mysteries. I pretty much stick to the Thelemic definition:

The art & practice of causing change in conformity with Will. This Will is personal only in so much as it is a reflection of universal Will.

But I think for the sake of this forum, Magic is more of a general term that relates to all those marginal ideas which lie outside of conventional rationalism and have a particularly "spiritual" or "mystical" foundation. Astral travel, spells, ghosts, spirits, hallucinations, shamanism, runes, tarot, kabbalah, hermetics, etc... All these things are phenomena that exist in the realm of experience but are undefinable by traditional scientific means. In a sense, Magic is anything that defies explanation. It is the meaning of Life, rather than it's blueprint.

Sebastian suggests that Magick is the process of realising how consciousness affects possibility, and then actively participatng in it.. I would extend this statement to say that consciousness itself is magic, and magic is the consciousness of Creation.

21:32 / 30.06.03

Broadly in agreement with LVX23. Magic is a set of tools which a) enhance awareness of oneself and one's environment, and b) provide the ability to instigate acausal change in accordance with will (acausal meaning that cause cannot be empirically linked with effect).

21:54 / 30.06.03

LIFE = MAGICK = LIFE

Who's your Tzaddi?

23:24 / 30.06.03

"See this photo above? That looks real, doesn't it? Wouldn't you love to be there right now? Know what? I made that in Bryce\Photshop. See those trees? They are a plug in. The water too. The reflections...hell, I can even still see the wireframes for the landscape. It's all knowing how to use the software - the information is out there , plenty of tutorials - anybody can do it with hardly any experience..."

08:37 / 01.07.03

I'm with LVX23 and set. Intent and will seem to be the core of it, mind over matter if you will. Look at the Magician Tarot card, as he grasps divine power from above, channels it through himself into the world (the four suits on the table). Power focused by Will into the world.

08:39 / 02.07.03

Then is any creative activity in essence a magic act? (an idea I realize has a lot of precidence to it)> In fact, most human activities start with an initial act of will ("I want a hambuger") which then leads to a transformation of that thought into reality (i.e buying the afore mentioned hambuger). If magic is just "reality conforming to the will" then all beings are magicians to some degree or another (once again, an idea with defite precidenence). I'm not sure abouyt the whole "magic is anything that defies explanation idea that Lvx32 brings up, as much of magical phenomena is certainly explainable, jsut possible by using a deferent frame of reference then a conventional scientific one (though if ritual and will have a definite effect on reality, then its possible we could talk about taht in scientific terms as well.

09:19 / 02.07.03

Most human activities start with a desire (I want a beer) then we impose our intention to fulfil that desire on the world (I WILL have a beer) by certain methods (bartender! here's a dollar, gimme a beer).
Some methods are more magical than others (BAMF! cold beer)

15:17 / 02.07.03

Now that I've spent time thinking about it, I will elaborate some on my HACK answer posted above. Magic(k) can be considered to be causing change in conformity with the Will, but is that it? What if I desire? What if I WANT that hot blond in class behind me, who, unlike the archtypal blond, has something intellegent to say? What if I want five dollars? Is there a differance between desire and Will? If there is, can desire enacted through ritual cause change as well? I've found that it can, the hardcore thelemist will argue that it must have been my True Will, but then I can counter argue that Will is nothing more than an uncommonly strong desire. So then the answer must be, to cause change. But all the universe is constantly changing. OK. To guide change. But the majority of change happens outside of my knowledge or ability to influence on all but the most personal and subjective levels. Fine. To cause personal or subjective change. But what of a Magic(k)ians ability to influence events outside his Self? But any arguement of "out there" can be reduced to nuerological or psychological "illusion", for instance, you do not see with your eyes, but with your visual cortex, which is interpreting electrical impulses. So then, To cause personal or subjective change in the Self. But what is it that acts to cause change? My ego is just a small raft adrift in the sea of mind, the ego is not the source of desire, merely that which "feels" desire, what desires? The Unknown Self. So Magic(k) is to cause personal or subjective change in the Unknown Self, Which is Magic(k) is to cause change in conformity with Will brought to unnecessary specifics. Why unneccesary? Because having to read something like this post makes one feel he is the butt of a very funny joke, funny to me anyway...

17:07 / 02.07.03

If magic is just "reality conforming to the will" then all beings are magicians to some degree

Hence *acausal.* Although you're absolutely right that there is no difference between between *magic* and *non-magic* once you get down to it. It's just sometimes helpful to draw artificial distinctions when dealing with consensus reality.

17:13 / 02.07.03

I think Crowley's definiton fails to give justice to the process of magic, or to define the intuitive understanding that we have for it. Sure, you can call it 'change in accordance to will' and define turning on a light switch as a magical act. But really, this sort fo definition is in itself a magical exercise to submerge the querent into a state of mind where magic is natural and a part of all things one does. Thus the definition is itself magic worked upon the reader, it does not actually define magic itself.

In our world, we understand science as the force of cause and effect, relationsahips which we understand and can control. But what about times when we can not connect a cause to an effect, other than perhaps that one desired it to be?

Say for instance one launches a sigel to gain money. One then forgets about the sigel, goes about their business, applies for and lands a job, and gets money. Desire backed by will caused change. One can argue that it was the getting off one's ass and applying for the job that landed the result, or one can argue that it was the sigel than allowed the job to be gained. Its a matter of perspective. If one looks at the cause as the sigel rather than the going to the job interview, then one considers the effect to be one of magic rather than of more mundane circumstances. And perhaps it is.

So magic is attempting to circumvent the normal process of cause and effect, to overpower it with will in order to cheat at the customary rules of reality in order to bring about change in accordance with will. It is not just change, it is change by process of magical application of will. It is attempting to work unseen and unmeasurable forces to cause these effects rather than known and measurable ones accepted by science. It is a form of fringe meta-science, in a way. But mostly, it is an attempt to cheat and gain effects by means other than by science.

Although this all comes with the popular quote (Asmov, was it? I'm not entirely certain): 'Any technology advanced enough to be beyond understanding is indistinguishable from magic'. That one cuts both ways, or so the magician hopes, as the idea that what ze does will have effect by use of forces currently unknown to popular science is the very basis of hir practice.

17:50 / 02.07.03

I think cusm's got a good angle here. I agree with his interpretation of Crowley's definition:

this sort of definition is in itself a magical exercise to submerge the querent into a state of mind where magic is natural and a part of all things one does.

I think this is exactly the point. Cusm, you elaborate on this notion further in your post:

It is attempting to work unseen and unmeasurable forces to cause these effects rather than known and measurable ones accepted by science.

I would add that magick is furthermore a process of redefining the relationship one has with the universe and causality, or a means of stepping out of rationalism and seeing it as one particular mode of causality among many. This is why it's called "meta-physics". It is a different type of physics than that peddled by mechanism. This is why magick is so rooted in belief because that's the only way to counter the dominant physical paradigms.

Consider Peter Carrol's prescription for chaos magick. He suggests that the beginner start by enchanting for things that have a very high chance of happening on their own, but then the mage must own the results as a positive reinforcement of their enchantment. For example, I cast a spell for sun this weekend - an event that is pretty likely in Santa Cruz this time of year. When, lo and behold, the weekend brings sun, I should aknowledge that as a result of my enchantment, rather than believing it was simple atmospheric dynamics. The atmospheric dynamics exist but, by metaphysics, they are available to influences beyond simple mechanism. While the butterfly adds it's part to the system, so does the mage though by different means.

The vector for the butterfly is the air; the vector for the mage is the aether. Power lies in the belief that both can be equally effective in modulating the weather if inserted at the proper point.

17:51 / 02.07.03

reality conforms to me

HOORAAH

20:14 / 02.07.03

Speaking of Carrol, there's a bit I missed: change of SELF in accordance to will. That's magic, isn't it? I think that's what LXV23 was getting at above as well. I tend to consider willful personal change to be magical work. To some definitions, THE magickal work. Though I suppose it might also be considered mystical. Hrm. Still, I think self change possibly fits Crowley's definition better than sorcery, and is no less important. Change in the microcosm as well as in the macrocosm.