|
Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 17:45:20 GMT -5
Original post by Chill:
Merry meet,
I'd like to see what everyone here thinks about this topic.
Do you use magick (or magic, for those who don't like the "k" ) in your life? Is it part of your spirituality?
To me, Magick is the power in the mind/spirit/will/universe. It is the energy inherent in the the cosmos, in the earth, in ourselves. We can gather it from within ourselves. Or pull it up from the earth or down from the cosmos. Working magick is a way to *harness* that energy. To give it direction and focus.
But how about everyone else. Does it even EXIST for you? If so, how do you define it?
Merry part, Cheryl
Matt:
Hiya Chill,
QUOTE: Does it even EXIST for you?
Absolutely.
QUOTE: If so, how do you define it?
Well, one of those big-name occultists (Waite? Crowley?) defined magic as "the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity to will." Frankly I can't think of a better working definition. Much more detail than that becomes problematic because magic utilizes a force that we are currently unable to qualify or quantify scientifically. I think some day science and magic will be reconciled. But for those of us who practice magic, a further break down of the mechanics is largely unnecessary. It works. I don't know exactly how a cell-phone works either, but I keep getting a bill! As I mentioned in another thread, as a general rule I have not considered divination to be magic, per se. I must admit though, your posing of these questions has made me re-think that. (Thank you for that!) I have always considered magic to be more projective and divination a more receptive act. But it is actually willfully becoming receptive. You are tapping into whatever current it is that allows you to be aware of things you previously were unaware of by means of imagery and symbolism. That actually fits the definition of magic. So I suppose I may need to change my position of that! But by that definition baking biscuits would be an act of magic. Maybe so. Many people assert that life is magical. When you ponder existence, it is kinda hard to argue with that! Frankly, I don't often think about the nature of magic. I think that when it is just part of who you are and what you do, you tend to think about it less and less. Like driving a car, it just becomes something you do - just a part of your paradigm.
Blessings,
Matt
Chill:
Greetings again,
Matt posted:
QUOTE: Well, one of those big-name occultists (Waite? Crowley?) defined magic as "the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity to will."
I believe that was Crowley. And I think he hit the nail on the head with that one.
QUOTE: But by that definition baking biscuits would be an act of magic. Maybe so. Many people assert that life is magical.
Well I think it is. I believe it was the will of the Gods (Creators, whatever you wish to call Them) who used Their own energy to create the universe, and continue to use Their power to shape it. And that all living things (and the universe itself because it is still constantly being created/destroyed) have a bit of the Divine Spark within them (soul, life force, spirit, electromagnetic energy). So whenever we exert our will on *anything* - a healing Ritual or baking biscuits - it's an act of Magick that recreates on a tiny scale the power of Their Creation. They formed destructive forces too (I see that as negative energy) that is equal and opposite to the creative (positive) ones.
When you use Magick, do you tend to draw up the energy from within yourself, pull it down from other sources or do you do a mixture of both? I almost always mix mine.
Merry part, Cheryl
Blackrose:
I tend to think of magic as more of a verb... or maybe a transitive verb. It is an act of doing something via "supernatural" means...
I don't, personally, see it as just employing will - but, then, I feel there are other kinds of magic than willworking... (placatory, for instance... )
But, then, I am sometimes hesitant to call placatory acts "magic"...
I admit it is one of those ill-defined terms... sometimes it is one of those "you know it when you see it" sort of things...
Like Matt, I do not usually consider divination to be magic. Nor do I consider psychic phenom to be magic. (I mention this because another forum I'm on seems to think that if you're in the slightest bit clairvoyent it proves that you're a "natural witch"
And while I am not much of a practicioner (at least not of will-working) - I am interested in the study of the systems of magic... like high magic vs. low... thaumaturgy vs. theurgy... will-working v. working with spirits...
What little I do tends to fall into the low, theurgic, spirit working/vaguely shamanistic camps...
Bear:
To me, magic is the applying of personal will to the cosmic/natural forces either within or outside of yourself with the intent of achieving a desired outcome.
There aren’t many absolutes that I would apply to magic: bad, good, method of practice, etc. About the only one I do apply to is that someone cannot claim to be “in harmony” with nature or the universe while casting magic. Someone can’t be in harmony with something they are trying to bend to their will. Of course, exactly how disharmonious it is depends on what they are trying to accomplish.
Blackrose, I think I’ve got a good reason for no considering divination an act of magic. Its not an imposition of will when someone is being receptive or passive.
Darkk:
To me, magic is the employment of an active agent (e.g. metaphysical Will, mystical symbolism, placatory rituals, etc. etc.) to harness, focus, or direct the essences of the natural and/or metaphysical world to achieve a set goal or desire. "Active" is the key word of this definition... magic is something that is done by the practitioner with purpose and intent. Passive approaches like divination, while certainly mystical and/or supernatural in some forms, fall short of the active designation of magic itself.
My tradition has divided many of the acts commonly given the label of "magic" into subdivisions, so to speak... namely, Gifts and Calls. A Gift is an alteration to the human baseline... a kind of minor or major adjustment that serves as a mark of spiritual, mystical, or metaphysical initiation. The most common Gift, at least among practitioners and spiritualists, is what I tend to call "Essence Awareness"... the recognition of the tidal ebb and flow of the forces inherent in reality itself. There are as many Gifts as there are Auspices (mystical or magical schools of thought)... perhaps more, if you take into account true solitary practitioners.
Calls are more difficult to explain, but they are tied up into the placatory or supplication-based practices. A Call is a kind of ritualized prayer to a greater force or god-form... Calls are specific in scope and design, kind of like a mystical form letter to a patron spirit or deity to request a specific form of aid or intervention. Though there is a modicum of debate, Calls are not formally considered to be "magic" because they themselves do nothing... the being receiving the Call is the one to ultimately enact their Will on behalf of the Caller, the Call itself is just a request for assistance.
The vast majority of the schools of divination are based on simple awareness... though the successful use of them often depends on a functioning Gift (in this case awareness of the threads of Fate, Wyrd, the Tapestry, etc. etc.) Anyone, even the uninitiated, could possibly use a divination methodology with tangible results... though a Gift-bearing true Initiate would better understand and perceive the subtleties of what their senses were trying to tell them.
- Darkk
Matt:
Chill wrote:
QUOTE: When you use Magick, do you tend to draw up the energy from within yourself, pull it down from other sources or do you do a mixture of both? I almost always mix mine.
I don't really see those as two different sources. To use the analogy of electricity: the "source" would be AC, we would be DC. You have this reserve of "energy" that you can use. But you can also tap into the AC and use it then or "recharge" yourself. So I don't really consider myself a source, just a conduit. Bear:
QUOTE: Blackrose, I think I’ve got a good reason for no considering divination an act of magic. Its not an imposition of will when someone is being receptive or passive.
That's always been my outlook. But, using the definition above, it fits. If it is some spontaneous psychic event, maybe not. But if you are actively trying to become receptive, it is an imposition of will.
Blessings,
Matt
Blackrose:
Darkk wrote:
QUOTE: To me, magic is the employment of an active agent (e.g. metaphysical Will, mystical symbolism, placatory rituals, etc. etc.) to harness, focus, or direct the essences of the natural and/or metaphysical world to achieve a set goal or desire. "Active" is the key word of this definition... magic is something that is done by the practitioner with purpose and intent.
I really like this definition because it covers a lot of ground aside from will-working...
Korak:
While I don't mind what definition others use, I don't agree that Crowley's definition of magick is necessarily the best one.
Let me explain: if you do a "wind summoning" spell, and a breeze appears, did you actually enforce your will upon reality and cause a breeze? Or did you simply use your natural psychic power to "precog" when a breeze was already on its way, and subconsciously time the spell just before the breeze arrived? How can you ever determine which version is valid? Or does it even matter?
For me, reality is not a cut and dried affair, like it is for most scientific minded people (those that agree with cause and effect). I don't think you can truly quantify magick in the same way you can with science. Magick is something beyond our standard cause and effect reality. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and I've concluded reality is on a "sliding scale" not an either/or. In other words, reality as we know it is not either "real" or not. Sometimes, it falls into the grey area in between "real" and "not real."
It may be obvious by now that I am a shamanic pagan, not a ceremonialist one. I think magick is a state of mind, and learning how to consciously enter that state of mind is what being a magick-worker is all about. In that state, you and the universe flow together, and it no longer matters whether your will or the universe is controlling your "reality." As Merlin told Arthur in Excaliber: "You will be the land and the land will be you- that is what it means to be King!" Substitute wizard for "king" and you get what I mean. Or so I hope.
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 17:48:37 GMT -5
Matt:
Blackrose wrote:
QUOTE: I really like this definition because it covers a lot of ground aside from will-working.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "will-working"? How are you distinguishing between the different styles or types of magic?
Blessings,
Matt
Shannon:
Korak wrote:
QUOTE:
Let me explain: if you do a "wind summoning" spell, and a breeze appears, did you actually enforce your will upon reality and cause a breeze? Or did you simply use your natural psychic power to "precog" when a breeze was already on its way, and subconsciously time the spell just before the breeze arrived? How can you ever determine which version is valid? Or does it even matter?
For me, the error in this type of thinking is that it goes on to imply that all desires or needs are a precog of the eventual satisfaction.
If I set out to get a job, I don't believe I've necessarily sensed the eventual employment. I think I'd be reacting to the hole in my pocket. Here in Phoenix it gets hot alot, and many of times I have wished for wind or rain and seen neither.
It also implies, that since you've precogged the fulfillment, that magic in itself is entirely uneccesary. Since it's fated to happen anyways, you just have to sit back and wait- no magic, activity, or production required.
Chill:
Greetings Bear,
Bear posted:
QUOTE: There aren’t many absolutes that I would apply to magic: bad, good, method of practice, etc. About the only one I do apply to is that someone cannot claim to be “in harmony” with nature or the universe while casting magic. Someone can’t be in harmony with something they are trying to bend to their will. Of course, exactly how disharmonious it is depends on what they are trying to accomplish.
Interesting comment; I'm not sure I agree with it though. Creation, destruction, change, light being bent and even pulled into a black hole -- I see the Universe as quite violent and more of a breathtaking discord than harmony. A Witch bending something to their will seems to fit in quite nicely to me.
Merry part, Cheryl
Greetings Darkk,
Darkk posted:
QUOTE: My tradition has divided many of the acts commonly given the label of "magic" into subdivisions, so to speak... namely, Gifts and Calls. A Gift is an alteration to the human baseline... a kind of minor or major adjustment that serves as a mark of spiritual, mystical, or metaphysical initiation. The most common Gift, at least among practitioners and spiritualists, is what I tend to call "Essence Awareness"... the recognition of the tidal ebb and flow of the forces inherent in reality itself. There are as many Gifts as there are Auspices (mystical or magical schools of thought)... perhaps more, if you take into account true solitary practitioners
Interesting; thank you for sharing your thoughts. Is your Tradition one of Ceremonial Magic(k)?
Merry part, Cheryl
Okay, let me try doing it this way instead of what I've been doing...
Matt posted:
QUOTE: I don't really see those as two different sources. To use the analogy of electricity: the "source" would be AC, we would be DC. You have this reserve of "energy" that you can use. But you can also tap into the AC and use it then or "recharge" yourself. So I don't really consider myself a source, just a conduit.
So, if your energy manipulation is going to tax your reserve, do you tap into the energy in the earth, or pull it down from the cosmos? Which do you find easier, or does it vary?
Korak posted:
QUOTE: I think magick is a state of mind, and learning how to consciously enter that state of mind is what being a magick-worker is all about. In that state, you and the universe flow together, and it no longer matters whether your will or the universe is controlling your "reality."
I can see that definition of Magick when one is using divination; of purposefully using the energy flow to try to read and interpret it. But what happens when the universe is controlling your reality toward a destination you don't want, and you're using Magick to effect a "course correction"? To me, the whole point of Magick is to make a change. Nature does it -- water flows down a path, hits an obstacle and the current flows in a new direction. Wind does it too. I view Magick, or energy manipulation if you will - as sometimes involving using one's will to make that energy "flow in a different direction".
Cheryl
Matt:
Chill wrote:
QUOTE: So, if your energy manipulation is going to tax your reserve, do you tap into the energy in the earth, or pull it down from the cosmos? Which do you find easier, or does it vary?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was saying. It appears I'm often not!
I do not see two different sources, ie the Earth and the Cosmos. I see that "energy" (how I've come to detest that word!) as permeating everything. It isn't a physical manifestation, (exactly....as far as I know) so I don't think of it as having a physical point of origin. (I know, I know, all matter is spirit changing forms &c. But I make the distinction in an attempt to clarify.)
Blessings,
Matt
*Edited to say, I am enjoying seeing more discussion on the board.
Darkk:
chill wrote:
QUOTE: Greetings Darkk,
Interesting; thank you for sharing your thoughts. Is your Tradition one of Ceremonial Magic(k)?
Merry part,
Cheryl
Ceremonial? No, not really... though some practitioners within my tradition do make use of ceremonial trappings and workings. Sorcery is, at its root, a kind of meta-discipline I suppose you could say... a way of classifying and binding the underpinnings of magic into a kind of metaphysical framework. The school of thought I use I have taken to calling Transcendental Semiotics, the study of observing and working with the flow of Essence from what I call the Living Symbols... patterns and configurations that live within the tapestry of reality itself, generating the spiritual or metaphysical forces that we perceive, in whole or in part, as magic.
- Darkk
Blackrose:
Matt wrote:
QUOTE: Could you elaborate on what you mean by "will-working"? How are you distinguishing between the different styles or types of magic?
Will-working is when the magician raises the energy and focuses it according to his will... will power as well as Will...
This is different from static spells in which the magic rests in the ingredients and in putting the ingredients together - tho there may be some will involved in the focus of it, the providence does not lie solely in the magicians will...
Also different from *some forms* of working with spirits - or various types of placatory or propitiatory rites in which the 'supplicant' asks of a favor for something in exchange, and the spirits - not the magician - does the actual magic...
Of course there are some forms of spirit working in which you are asking them to borrow their energies and then you do the magic with that... and these would be a mixture of spirit and will...
Of course, there is a lot of overlap and grey areas... and there is also the issue of whether placatory rites and whatnot are really definable as "doing magic"...
If magic is defined as predominantly the will arts... then I must simply return to my initial premise that I don't do a lot of magic... even tho I exist in a magical paradigm...
Bear:
Darkk:
bear wrote:
QUOTE: Yes, the universe is a wild and chaotic place. But you said it yourself, "...bending something to their will..." The act of bending something to someone’s will is inherently a non-harmonious act. A harmonious act would be to allow the something to continue to do what it was doing without influence.
What if one theorizes that reality has... a certain degree of flexibility when it comes to causal relationships? That it is possible to move or otherwise rearrange the structure of one's local reality to a degree, thus changing outcomes or altering probabilities to a similar degree. That reality contains a vast strata of complex interactions that mount in an incalculable sense... a cacophony where the shades of harmony and dissonance are not so distinguishable from one-another.
- Darkk
Bear:
How disharmonious it is depends on what is being done.
To use a symphony metaphor… If one player changes a note that he is supposed to play, the change may be imperceptible to the audience, especially if the player only changes it to a higher or lower octave or to a note or rhythm that another instrument is playing. If 5 or 10 players start changing the notes they are supposed to play, the change to the symphony becomes more perceptible. But the changes are still in line with what the rest of the symphony is playing, the change may be perceived as “spontaneous”, “avant-garde”, or “stylistic” than out of harmony.
The more players that start changing the notes they are supposed to play or the more radically an individual player changes the notes they are supposed to play, the more perceptible the changes become because the changes are more disharmonious.
When using magic, the caster is changing the notes that are being played by the symphony.
If someone using magic is using a small amount of energy and is trying to cause a small change, the amount of disharmony is small. The bigger or more radical the change that is trying to be caused or the more energy someone uses to cause the change, the more disharmonious it becomes.
Darkk:
bear wrote:
QUOTE: How disharmonious it is depends on what is being done.
To use a symphony metaphor… If one player changes a note that he is supposed to play, the change may be imperceptible to the audience, especially if the player only changes it to a higher or lower octave or to a note or rhythm that another instrument is playing. If 5 or 10 players start changing the notes they are supposed to play, the change to the symphony becomes more perceptible. But the changes are still in line with what the rest of the symphony is playing, the change may be perceived as “spontaneous”, “avant-garde”, or “stylistic” than out of harmony.
The more players that start changing the notes they are supposed to play or the more radically an individual player changes the notes they are supposed to play, the more perceptible the changes become because the changes are more disharmonious.
When using magic, the caster is changing the notes that are being played by the symphony.
If someone using magic is using a small amount of energy and is trying to cause a small change, the amount of disharmony is small. The bigger or more radical the change that is trying to be caused or the more energy someone uses to cause the change, the more disharmonious it becomes.
This comes back to the crux of what I was saying... in your metaphor, reality and the effect of magic upon it is like a symphony... notes written, effectively in stone, that when deviated from give the impression of dissonance or error in the symphony itself. But in my metaphor, there is no overarching symphony... there is, instead, an agglomerate of symphonies playing all at once, on top of one another, which the individual attempts to tune into to their best of their abilities.
The practitioner is the conductor of their own little symphony, so to speak... and the workings they are trying to bring about reflect that symphony, the implement of their intent. They can join their symphony to another, in an attempt to harmonize... or perhaps to overwhelm, or to influence... the net effect being a change in the overall music on a wider level, effecting more than just the solitary conductor/practitioner.
- Darkk
Matt:
blackrose wrote:
QUOTE: Matt wrote:
QUOTE: Could you elaborate on what you mean by "will-working"? How are you distinguishing between the different styles or types of magic?
Will-working is when..(snip)..This is different from static spells..(snip)..Also different from ..(snip)..Of course there are
Thank you. I just wasn't sure how you were differentiating. I agree with what you are saying, I just wasn't sure how magic could be without any will on the part of the practitioner. But I see now that isn't what you were saying.
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 17:49:42 GMT -5
Chill:
Matt wrote:
QUOTE:
I do not see two different sources, ie the Earth and the Cosmos.
Okay I *think* I see what you mean, but now that raises another question -- what do you see yourself invoking when you call the Quarters? Or DO you call them? I'm just trying to understand. If it's all one source, what is the purpose of calling them separately?
Darkk wrote:
QUOTE: Sorcery is, at its root, a kind of meta-discipline I suppose you could say... a way of classifying and binding the underpinnings of magic into a kind of spiritual or metaphysical philosophy. The school of thought I use I have taken to calling Transcendental Semiotics , the study of observing and working with the flow of Essence from what I call the Living Symbols... patterns and configurations that live within the tapestry of reality itself, generating the spiritual or metaphysical forces that we perceive, in whole or in part, as magic.
Okay, is that anything at all like String Theory, where everything is inter-connected?
Bear wrote:
QUOTE: Yes, the universe is a wild and chaotic place. But you said it yourself, "...bending something to their will..." The act of bending something to someone’s will is inherently a non-harmonious act. A harmonious act would be to allow the something to continue to do what it was doing without influence.
You could be right. But I can see 2 possible scenarios; I obviously believe the 2nd one:
1) Nature makes changes. Nature never does anything that is disharmonious with itself; i.e., the changes made are part of Nature's own harmony and there is no discord. So when WE make changes we are reflecting Nature by doing the same.
2) Nature makes changes. Nature DOES things that are disharmonious, i.e., Nature will create discord. So when WE make changes we are ALSO creating discord - thus still reflecting Nature.
"Bending something to my will" could be as innocuous as watering my vegetable garden when Nature has decided not to give rain for two weeks. So I take the water and put it there myself. Would you consider that an unharmonious act?
Merry part, Cheryl
Darkk:
chill wrote:
QUOTE: Okay, is that anything at all like String Theory, where everything is inter-connected?
Quantum Physical jargon aside, I believe you could say that; yes. Though instead of subatomic particles and fundamental forces it deals with spiritual essences and metaphysical constructs within reality. We do believe that all things are unified on the essential level... emanations of the True Symbols, which are the spiritual children of the transcendent Totality (the gestalten sum of all things, forces, ideas, and energies).
- Darkk
Matt:
chill wrote:
QUOTE: Okay I *think* I see what you mean, but now that raises another question -- what do you see yourself invoking when you call the Quarters? Or DO you call them? I'm just trying to understand. If it's all one source, what is the purpose of calling them separately?
OK, that's a whole 'nuther thing. I was just talking about this "energy" that is manipulated; the undefined, etheral something. I don't necessarily go through an entire ritual set-up to perform magic. Calling the quarters would be in the category of ritual practice.
Blessings,
Matt
Blackrose:
Matt wrote:
QUOTE: Okay I *think* I see what you mean, but now that raises another question -- what do you see yourself invoking when you call the Quarters? Or DO you call them? I'm just trying to understand. If it's all one source, what is the purpose of calling them separately?
OK, that's a whole 'nuther thing. I was just talking about this "energy" that is manipulated; the undefined, etheral something. [/quote]
This is, perhaps, one area in which I am different as well...
While I do believe in a general sort of undefined, unifying Energy... I also believe in and would be more likely to connect with and/or utilize individual essences/energies... Like earth energy is different from fire energy... and creative energies are different from destructive energies...
I know some believe that it's just "energy" and that we shape it to be creative or destructive... but I believe that there are individual energies which have their own signatures, so to speak... and would "tap into" whatever energy would be best for a working and exploration...
Or perhaps we are simply passing each other in our explanations...
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 17:50:30 GMT -5
Matt:
Blackrose:
QUOTE: While I do believe in a general sort of undefined, unifying Energy... I also believe in and would be more likely to connect with and/or utilize individual essences/energies... Like earth energy is different from fire energy... and creative energies are different from destructive energies...
No, I believe the same. I wasn't terribly clear in what I was trying to express. I should have clarified by saying I was speaking in generalities. The question came up addressed to me specifically about the Quarters. I didn't want to seem overly rude by saying "I really can't talk about that". I guess it would have been less confusing if I had.
Blessings all,
Snooty Elitist Whatshisname
Blackrose:
Matt wrote:
QUOTE: No, I believe the same. I wasn't terribly clear in what I was trying to express. I should have clarified by saying I was speaking in generalities. The question came up addressed to me specifically about the Quarters. I didn't want to seem overly rude by saying "I really can't talk about that". I guess it would have been less confusing if I had.
Blessings all,
Snooty Elitist Whatshisname
Ok... it did seem odd to me, considering what little I do know of your beliefs from past discussions... but I think we were just on different pages
I'll leave you to yours oaths...
Korak:
QUOTE: For me, the error in this type of thinking is that it goes on to imply that all desires or needs are a precog of the eventual satisfaction.
If I set out to get a job, I don't believe I've necessarily sensed the eventual employment. I think I'd be reacting to the hole in my pocket. Here in Phoenix it gets hot a lot, and many of times I have wished for wind or rain and seen neither.
It also implies, that since you've precogged the fulfillment, that magic in itself is entirely unnecesary. Since it's fated to happen anyways, you just have to sit back and wait- no magic, activity, or production required.
I don't think that all desires or needs are precogs of future experiences. I certainly did not mean to imply this. What I was trying to do is explain the futileness of "cause and effect" style magick- how do you know it's a real effect, emanating from your magickal Will? It's a solipcism: an argument that is, by its nature, unprovable.
It gets hot here in Georgia too, and a wish for rain is not often granted... but a simple wish isn't magick, is it? I was speaking of actively working magick in some way, via ritual.
Nor do I agree with that last implication- humanity isn't inclined to sit and do nothing. Magick is an age old way of influencing our reality. And how does one precog what isn't being magickally willed into reality?
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 17:55:24 GMT -5
Darkk:
I wanted to reply to some of these comments because I thought them interesting.
Korak wrote:
QUOTE: I don't think that all desires or needs are precogs of future experiences. I certainly did not mean to imply this. What I was trying to do is explain the futileness of "cause and effect" style magick- how do you know it's a real effect, emanating from your magickal Will? It's a solipcism: an argument that is, by its nature, unprovable.
I'm not quite sure I have seen solipsism, as a term, employed in quite this way... solipsism as I know it typically concerns the notion that the Self cannot know anything save itself, and that it is the only thing that rationally exists (all other things being extensions or abstractions thereof). Insofar as "cause and effect" in a magical working, I imagine it working much the same as cause and effect works in empirical reality... if you apply Force A to Object B and Object B exhibits the behaviors applicable to Force A, then Force A is in all likelihood the active agent in the equation.
Coincidence is powerful mitigating force, but it only goes so far. Ultimately a practitioner has only one target audience... his or herself. It is possible to question anything one does in the same manner, but it seems somehow senseless to do so unless there is truly a question present. It is unprovable, I agree... but since we are not talking about empirical forces or tangible qualities it doesn't seem to be an applicable rationale for dismissing them, as I see it.
Korak wrote:
QUOTE: It gets hot here in Georgia too, and a wish for rain is not often granted... but a simple wish isn't magick, is it? I was speaking of actively working magick in some way, via ritual.
Nor do I agree with that last implication- humanity isn't inclined to sit and do nothing. Magick is an age old way of influencing our reality. And how does one precog what isn't being magickally willed into reality?
I would agree... an unrealized or unformed desire for a thing is not magic, it is simply a desire. As for determining (this being what I gather you mean in this statement) when magic has truly occurred... it is a question of your faith, or your beliefs. Magic has no tangible outward manifestations as far as observers go... the practitioner might feel a sense of internal affirmation when a working returns a result or is enacted, but this is not empirical evidence that could be used to verify the claim.
In a real sense, the question becomes this: "why do you require external verification?" I have always maintained that the working of magic, in general, requires the suspension of disbelief... if only temporarily. You have to step outside preconceived notions of the workings of things, to accept that what you seek is perhaps rationally impossible... but to seek it regardless. This doesn't come easy to most... we are indoctrinated from an early age to believe only in what we see, or hear, or touch with our physical senses. But I believe we possess other senses... perhaps less rational ones... such intuition, essence sensitivity, and perhaps even a brand of limited clairsentience.
"Once you accept the notion of the invisible world all around us, you must also begin to accept that its nature defies conventional analysis." - Dinsen
- Darkk
Chill:
Blackrose wrote:
QUOTE: While I do believe in a general sort of undefined, unifying Energy... I also believe in and would be more likely to connect with and/or utilize individual essences/energies... Like earth energy is different from fire energy... and creative energies are different from destructive energies...
I know some believe that it's just "energy" and that we shape it to be creative or destructive... but I believe that there are individual energies which have their own signatures, so to speak... and would "tap into" whatever energy would be best for a working and exploration...
Yes, that's similar to how I see it too, and that's interesting because you and I are quite different in other ways. I suppose for those of us who manipulate energy it doesn't matter how you see it; the object is to have your magick work for you. But for me, I can sense different feelings for different types of energy. Different vibrations if you will.
Korak wrote:
QUOTE: What I was trying to do is explain the futileness of "cause and effect" style magick- how do you know it's a real effect, emanating from your magickal Will? It's a solipcism: an argument that is, by its nature, unprovable.
Okay I had to go to a dictionary for solipsism -- which definition did you mean?
solipsism: 1) Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. 2) extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
Regarding proving "magickal cause and effect", it can be difficult to prove. Then again can I prove my cats know their names? If I call one of my cats and she comes to me, that doesn't prove she knows her name because she may have just come to me anyway at that time. And perhaps a skeptic who thinks cats are stupid wouldn't believe she knows it although I can make that happen over and over. Because sometimes, they DO come to me when I DON'T call them (like now, when 2 of them are climbing all over me and trying to step on my keyboard....)
I suppose it depends upon your ability to believe we can manipulate energy. Not to sound like Yoda, but if you believe you *can't* - you won't be able to. One can't implement a successful magickal working if their energies are ones of failure and uncertainty. When I do a magickal working, it usually DOES have the desired effect, but then I begin the work knowing that it will. So it's either my magick achieving my goal or one coincidence after another.
Darkk wrote:
QUOTE: Coincidence is powerful mitigating force, but it only goes so far. Ultimately a practitioner has only one target audience... his or herself. It is possible to question anything one does in the same manner, but it seems somehow senseless to do so unless there is truly a question present. It is unprovable, I agree... but since we are not talking about empirical forces or tangible qualities it doesn't seem to be an applicable rationale for dismissing them, as I see it.
I agree with you. As you said it's often impossible to prove something is cause-and-effect and not just a coincidence. But how many "coincidences" does it take to prove that it isn't one?
Merry part, Cheryl
Bear:
QUOTE: "Bending something to my will" could be as innocuous as watering my vegetable garden when Nature has decided not to give rain for two weeks. So I take the water and put it there myself. Would you consider that an unharmonious act?
Again, its all about degrees. For your back yard garden, the disharmony is small. Turn two square miles of land into wheat like my great grandfather did and the disharmony is greater.
You clear and grub the field, you alter the food chain. You till the soil, there is wind and water erosion. You plant, nutrients are taken from the soil. You fertilize, nitrogen seeps into the aquifer. You water, phosphorus gets into the rivers and lakes and causes algae plumes. You apply pesticides, you alter the food chain more. You harvest and leave bare soil again, allowing more wind and water erosion.
Agriculture is a very disharmonious act.
Chill:
Bear wrote:
QUOTE: Again, its all about degrees. For your back yard garden, the disharmony is small. Turn two square miles of land into wheat like my great grandfather did and the disharmony is greater. <snip> Agriculture is a very disharmonious act.
As is starvation, which is what would happen *without* agriculture. However, agriculture does not have to result in disharmony, depending upon how that agriculture is done. I don't use pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilizers on my garden (or my lawn, for that matter). I never have bare soil in my garden; I use last year's chopped leaves as a mulch between plants and in the late Fall, I put in place another layer of chopped leaves that get tilled in come Spring just prior to planting.
I consider magickal workings to be "course corrections" that we have decided to implement.
How does a course correction implemented magically differ from any others we would make? If you would keep your child from touching a hot stove, rescue them at the last moment before being struck by a car when they ran into the street, move your savings from a Money Market savings account into a higher-yield CD -- these are all acts of will that are about changing a current course. Do you consider all "course corrections" to be an interference and thus disharmonious, or only magickal ones?
Merry part, Cheryl
Shannon:
chill wrote:
QUOTE: As is starvation, which is what would happen *without* agriculture.
I wouldn't say so. Death is a natural occurrence in nature- and I think it expects it of us at some point. The universe also didn't create mass agriculture, we did. (Well...you get what I mean.)
That said, allowing yourself to die of starvation to not be disharmoniuos is The Dumb. (TM BR )
Simply Kali:
Time to jump in on this interesting conversation! But first, to answer the questions:
Yes, I believe in magic and it is part of my everyday spiritual life. When I explain to someone what I believe magic or "casting spells" is, I have a very basic and general explanation that I will share.
Magic is the use of energy, either my own or from external sources, to create a desired result. I think of it much like a glorified prayer. I focus my energy on the desired result just like a person who prays really hard for their desired result. (Usually, at this point, I start explaining about "do no harm" and my personal moral code for "casting spells" and whatnot, you know, the basics, don't hurt people, you reap what you sow, and so on.)
I use energy within me and around me, but in order to focus it I have to draw the external energy into myself first.
I agree that the world is magical. After all, even though we have many scientific reasons for how the world works, the fact that we are even HERE is magical. The fact that we are intelligent enough to even have this conversation is magical.
I don't know if I consider divination as magic or not, although when I am using the tarot cards I am focusing my energy much like when I use magic. But I am not focusing my energy to necessarily get a desired result exactly. Otherwise, I would just pull the cards that tell me what I want to hear versus what I need to hear. Still, I think of them as connected since I use energy for both.
QUOTE: There aren’t many absolutes that I would apply to magic: bad, good, method of practice, etc. About the only one I do apply to is that someone cannot claim to be “in harmony” with nature or the universe while casting magic. Someone can’t be in harmony with something they are trying to bend to their will. Of course, exactly how disharmonious it is depends on what they are trying to accomplish.
I don't know if I agree with this statement. I feel that I am very much in harmony with nature when I use magic. I use the energies FROM nature that are all around me. The world's energies are harmonious with nature, otherwise they wouldn't be there. And I like to think that if I am trying to accomplish something that is "disharmonious" then it probably wont happen. I build that into my spells as a failsafe. I can't call the wind, I can't change the tide, I can't force a tree to grow or die so there is no use in trying to do so because it wont happen. I'll just end up expelling all my inner energy and tire myself out. Of course, this is all in application to me and to what I do with my energy, not other people. If using my energy for a desired result doesn't mesh with my personal moral code then I don't do it. I suppose someone could do something hurtful or disharmonious with nature using magic, but I like to think that you get what you give. Nature balances itself out, and if you are the cause of the disharmony, then you will provide the outlet for balance. Of course this is my current personal belief and perhaps I am being naive.
Ms Ariel:
I thought I would just paste in here my own thoughts, just for the hell of it.
I think it exists, in what form, I don't know, as I don't have any real experience with it, at least not what I'd call magic. I've never done a spell, or asked for really anything from the Divine. Though I have tried to send some energy, it didn't really work.
A part of me is always leary about doing spells, since I've always thought, I dont' want anything bad enough to simply put it in the hands of the Divine, and chances are I can get whatever it is by other means anyway. However I also know that it's not simply asking for it, and waiting for it to show up, its more a boost to what you are already doing.... guess I'm still very skeptical about whether it really works or not
Chill:
Simply_Kali wrote:
QUOTE: I don't know if I agree with this statement. I feel that I am very much in harmony with nature when I use magic. I use the energies FROM nature that are all around me. The world's energies are harmonious with nature, otherwise they wouldn't be there.
You and I see it the same. To believe that directing change is somehow not harmonious with Nature doesn't make sense to me. The only constant IS change. Nature creates and destroys and is forever in a state of flux.
Merry part, Chery
Matt:
I don't particularly believe the disharmony with nature thing either. To me that point of view potentially implies so many things I don't agree with. For one, it lends itself to predestination. And it also seems to take the view that we are somehow apart from nature, observing some prime directive not to interfere.
Darkk:
I would say it also seems to attempt to pigeonhole the concept of Nature... which, in my experience, is a dynamic and multifaceted force or manifestation that encompasses a wide range of activities and complexities beyond our ability to truly categorize one way or the other.
- Darkk
Qira:
I think magic is the ability to tap the unconscious psyche and activated archetypes, which, in turn (in my practice) puts me in touch with the gods and the Collective Unconscious, and thereby make change in the world and in myself in accordance with my will.
This is part of why doing the work of drawing up what is in the unconscious is so important.
Qira
Korak:
Chill, I may be wrong, but I always thought solipsism meant an argument or an idea, that by its very nature, was completely unprovable. Sorta the opposite of an "self-evident truth." The philosophical argument that only I exist- all of you are just projections of my subconscious- is only one example of such an argument- but not the sole meaning of the term... at least, so I thought.
I agree that multiple "coincidences" can hardly be explained by any sort of "scientific" thinking. Once, during a ritual where I was working with the Earth element, a large toad suddenly hopped into the Circle. This wouldn't be even vaguely interesting if I hadn't been locked indoors in a third floor apartment, with no way for a toad to get upstairs! And for it to show up just during an invocation to Earth! Too many coincidences, huh?
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about me, btw- I do believe in magick. I wasn't debunking it at all- just trying to point out its operation may be more complex than we understand- or even can understand. Applying "cause and effect" thinking to it may be unhelpful at best.
I just finished reading Phyllis Curott's Witch Crafting, and found it echoed my thoughts exactly: magick is more than rote regurgitation- there must be a spiritual aspect to it beyond physical laws we just don't fully understand yet. Perfect timing for it to show up in my life just when I am discussing the nature of magick here on this board- "coincidence" or maybe the universe is trying to tell us something?
Qira:
We were just talking about this a bit in chat, so I thought I'd add my two cents.
Solipsism really means the idea that there is nothing real outside one's mind or the projections of one's mind. It's also used, more casually, to mean arguments that are based on totally self-absorbed, self-referential positions.
Qira
Chill:
Korak wrote:
QUOTE: Chill: I may be wrong, but I always thought solipsism meant an argument or an idea, that by its very nature, was completely unprovable. <snip>
Okay, so for clarity's sake let's toss aside the big word and instead use "unprovable belief" so everyone's on the same page
Korak continues:
QUOTE: I agree that multiple "coincidences" can hardly be explained by any sort of "scientific" thinking. Once, during a ritual where I was working with the Earth element, a large toad suddenly hopped into the Circle. This wouldn't be even vaguely interesting if I hadn't been locked indoors in a third floor apartment, with no way for a toad to get upstairs! And for it to show up just during an invocation to Earth! Too many coincidences, huh?
I'm at the point in my life where I don't believe in coincidence.
Korak continues:
QUOTE: I just finished reading Phyllis Curott's Witch Crafting, and found it echoed my thoughts exactly: magick is more than rote regurgitation- there must be a spiritual aspect to it beyond physical laws we just don't fully understand yet. Perfect timing for it to show up in my life just when I am discussing the nature of magick here on this board- "coincidence" or maybe the universe is trying to tell us something?
I think the universe is always trying to tell us something. And that communication can go both ways, btw. The universe listens, as well.
I agree that trying to use "rote regurgitation" as you aptly put it to work Magick is doomed to fail. I see the spiritual aspect as being the energy gathered and directed, which empowers the spell. Trying to work Magick without this energy is like trying to drive your car without gas; you can go through the motions but you won't get anywhere.
Merry part, Cheryl
Allstar:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
Do you use magick (or magic, for those who don't like the "k" ) in your life? Is it part of your spirituality?
...snip...
Does it even EXIST for you? If so, how do you define it?
Yes. I don't use magic often, but I do when I feel I have a need. Sometimes this may be for an internal change, or to send healing energy to someone else, or what have you. I guess I would consider that part of my spirituality - serving the Divine by serving people in need (including myself at times).
I suppose I would define it as manipulating energy to affect change. Energy = Universal energy. I think all energy is interconnected, though may have different vibrations (E.G., Elemental energy).
Not sure if that makes sense. I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. LOL. This is something I've been trying to think about and make sense of for myself for quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 23, 2009 17:56:06 GMT -5
Chill:
Allstar wrote:
QUOTE: Yes. I don't use magic often, but I do when I feel I have a need. Sometimes this may be for an internal change, or to send healing energy to someone else, or what have you. I guess I would consider that part of my spirituality - serving the Divine by serving people in need (including myself at times).
I suppose I would define it as manipulating energy to affect change. Energy = Universal energy. I think all energy is interconnected, though may have different vibrations (E.G., Elemental energy).
Not sure if that makes sense. I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. LOL. This is something I've been trying to think about and make sense of for myself for quite a while.
It makes perfect sense to me. "Manipulating energy to effect change" is exactly the way I define the use of Magick.
When you gather and send out energy to do this, can you also literally feel the energy leave? I've been trying to put my finger on how to explain it -- it's as though the energy leaves a "void" behind it for a little while. Do you feel that too?
Cheryl
Allstar:
chill wrote:
QUOTE:
I've been trying to put my finger on how to explain it -- it's as though the energy leaves a "void" behind it for a little while. Do you feel that too?
Hm. No, I don't think so. But I think that's where my philosophy on all energy is interconnected comes in. I'm grounding, pulling up energy from the earth (or wherever), and sending that energy out to affect other energy, which at some point will vibrate back to me in one way or another... blah blah blah.... hahaha
I feel like it's a continual cycle, and therefore there's never any kind of void for me.
Does that make sense?
Chill:
Allstar wrote:
QUOTE: Hm. No, I don't think so. But I think that's where my philosophy on all energy is interconnected comes in. I'm grounding, pulling up energy from the earth (or wherever), and sending that energy out to affect other energy, which at some point will vibrate back to me in one way or another... blah blah blah.... hahaha
I feel like it's a continual cycle, and therefore there's never any kind of void for me.
Does that make sense?
Sure. It tells me that it's different for you. I can actually feel the energy void (not exactly what it feels like but it's the closest word that comes to the feeling) for several seconds. Isn't it interesting how differently it works for each individual?
Cheryl
|
|