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

Underground > Temple >

Special K?

Page: 1(2)

07:45 / 12.07.06

While dear old Al did indeed use the K to identify between the Magi and the pretender he never said which was witch and rarely seems to have used the K himself.

Personally I frequently find myself using "magic[k]" while online for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking (thankfully absent here). Otherwise its magic all the way.

07:53 / 12.07.06

While dear old Al did indeed use the K to identify between the Magi and the pretender he never said which was witch and rarely seems to have used the K himself.

Aside from in the title of his major work on the subject...

08:27 / 12.07.06

.. and all of his writings.

09:59 / 12.07.06

which was witch

shurely a spelling joc(k)e? Are we talking about the same A.C?

08:15 / 13.07.06

Aside from in the title of his major work on the subject...

Yes but which spelling did he use inside said work?

shurely a spelling joc(k)e? Are we talking about the same A.C?

Freudian slap.

A.C. = The Great Beast? Probably. He strikes me as a bit of a joker, despite being a goat botherer, and getting people to spell magic with a k strikes me has his sense of humour.

Is it really important how we spell "Magic"; we know what it is and that's what's important.

09:02 / 13.07.06

Magick Without Tears. Read the contents page for numerous examples. Then maybe the text.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:04 / 13.07.06

While dear old Al did indeed use the K to identify between the Magi and the pretender he never said which was witch and rarely seems to have used the K himself.

*headdesk* Dude, do youself a favour and actually read some Crowley before coming out with this kind of thing.

Hallo, Paper Spaceboy

22:14 / 13.07.06

I tend to spell it plain old "magic," no extraneous consonants or swapped letters. I think this is partly because I don't actually see stage magic as being something else entirely, just a different angle or strand of the same thing. Modulation of perception to achieve an effect (even, har har, magic into money)...

04:44 / 14.07.06

Niles: He used "magick" throughout all of his work. See mine and LVX's posts in the linked thread for a breakdown of the whys.

While I do agree with this:

Is it really important how we spell "Magic"; we know what it is and that's what's important

I found it interesting the permutations AC got out of it. Beyond that I'm not that bothered, fer true.

10:53 / 14.07.06

It's not important, I agree, but in a thread that is about the special k, saying it isn't important seems a bit pointless after asking whether Crowley used it in his work. Sort of like sour grapes.

11:13 / 14.07.06

Very true, Quants.

I think I said something like in the other threead but Crowley's reading of such a simple act - the addition of a "k" - is a masterclass in the creation of meaning and signiicance. A simple letter is turned into a cypher for a whole worldview. If that's not magick, I don't know what is.

12:48 / 14.07.06

That's the issue at hand though, isn't it. That extra K has got a whole raft of meaning behind it, for Crowley, and that's why it's there. By adding that letter he manages to make the word a composite glyph of what magic means to him. He wasn't just adding the K to make it sound really cool in a teh maaahjikz kind of way, there was a really interesting thought process going on behind that choice of spelling which is integral to his whole system. This is why I use the spelling "Magick" exclusively when I'm talking about Crowley's system of magic, and in all other instances I'll spell it in the usual manner.

07:54 / 15.07.06

Actually Mage ick is the proper spelling. Al ick nose.

08:00 / 15.07.06

And Black (the worst kind) is just plain "ick".

Unconditional Love

09:19 / 15.07.06

Where can i read over crowleys deliberation over the k, i read magick some years ago and dont recall alot of it, started reading the blue equinox the other day and that so far is mostly focused on explaining the book of the law, so where abouts does crowley explain the k as part of a magickal purpose?

10:05 / 15.07.06

Majick without tears...or the autohag of AC

10:10 / 15.07.06

eyelinered twatbiscuits

I have two black eyes...should I take offence and report you?

21:28 / 15.07.06

Hi Morpheus. Please don't multiple post like that.

· N · E · T ·

02:27 / 22.07.06

Mahdgjickque

Because none of the other spellings are pretentious enough.

ceilingsarecool

16:56 / 22.07.06

I'm on a mission to make all things magical and ritual related seem as boring as possible to those who only look into it as a result of questing for novelty and sensationalism. So I choose "magic," an ordinary spelling for what I consider an ordinary... occurrence/force/practice.

10:24 / 23.07.06

I'm sure you can think of far more interesting and worthwhile missions than that ceilingsarecool.

14:27 / 23.07.06

to those who only look into it as a result of questing for novelty and sensationalism.

How do you tell who they are I wonder?

ceilingsarecool

16:23 / 23.07.06

from Quantum Saw a Real Live Badger:
How can you tell that I wonder?

...I live in the U.S. It's not all that difficult to spot the hobbyists, because in my community, they generally admit to a. not doing any work for their spirituality or magical practice and b. they frequently change the discussion to gaming and science fiction discussions when pressed for what they actually do or what they understand about magic (which is fine, but not when the venue has been designated for another topic altogether).

That said, I do prefer the ordinary spelling of magic, although I have to admit that adding the "k" makes web searches much easier.

10:09 / 24.07.06

Ah yes, the Toreador pin and dogeared copy of Snow Crash are a dead giveaway. I know what you mean.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:20 / 24.07.06

Well, yeah, there are hobbyists and they can be a bit annoying (esp. if they do that thing where you try and pretend that you are not a hobbyist and denounce everyone else as delusional). But a lot of people start out as hobbyists, drawn in by glamour and shiny things, and then over time their practice evolves into something much deeper and more meaningful. You don't know what someone might become.

ceilingsarecool

11:52 / 24.07.06

Mordant C. says: You don't know what someone might become.
I have no argument with giving people a chance, at least initially. However, until that person arrives on the serious end, I'm going to bore him/her into leaving me be. I can't spend my life having the same circular conversations, which is what happens when I spend too much time with the hobbyists -- and I think after knowing a few in my community for more than five years, I can pretty well conclude that the specific ones are not going to move on but are going to go over the same stuff repetitively.

Also, I think there ARE ways to tell what a person will become based on his/her initial approach: it's all in the questioning. A person who questions, and continues to question, and who stumps me with questions in such a way that I'm forced to hunt for an answer myself, is probably on the road to serious magical practice, if not already there. A person who either demands answers or claims to have all of them...well, definiitely not. A person who identifies him/herself as magical, but who then proceeds to speak only of games and fantasy play (this may be a community outlook issue unique to not just my country but my part of my country) is likely not that serious about magic and more invested in SCA, Renn faire, and the like.

...and I fear I'm aiding and abetting getting this thread off track. Could we take it to private messaging or start another thread about the serious and non-serious?

13:38 / 24.07.06

If I may suggest this thread for such discussion? We have been using it to examine perceptions about other magical traditions and hobbyists seem like a fitting next step.

21:17 / 31.07.06

I feel a little strange that I don't really know the answer. I so rarely refer to anything I do as "magic[k]" in the first place. I tend to be more specific as to which technique I'm using.

From the outside in I realize that both "magic" and "magick" look normal to me. I'm sufficiently surrounded by people who use both terms that I no longer notice the 'k' until it's pointed out.

I have been poked at for being pretentious in tending to call everything "Work" of one kind or another (trance work, energy work, rune work, ritual work, etc.) but that's another thing I picked up from the people I... work... with. I suppose I should put concious effort into choosing my words and spellings more carefully, but ultimately my goal is to communicate clearly, and so far everyone seems to know what I mean.

--Ember--

21:50 / 31.07.06

I have two black eyes...should I take offence and report you?

Yes, please do. I'm clearly mascarist.

07:32 / 01.08.06

I'm clearly mascarist.

We should beat you then?

--Ember--

Page: 1(2)