Definitions of magick
By Psyche | April 14, 2008 | Print This Post | E-mail This Post | 20 Comments
Most “definitions” of magick fail define it concretely, they suggest more than they reveal, which seems to be in keeping with the glamour that’s been cast over the term.
Of course, one of the most enduring summations is Crowley’s often paraphrased:
“Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.”
On the Magick index page for SpiralNature.com I’ve collected a bunch of quotes attempting to pin down what we mean when we say “magick”. The quality varies significantly and demonstrates a wide range of (mis?)understandings regarding what we mean by the term.
What’s your definition of magick? If you were explaining it to someone unfamiliar with it, how would you describe it?
If you enjoyed this subscribe to the RSS feed!
What is RSS?
Psyche is the editor of Plutonica.net and the curator for the occult resource SpiralNature.com, Psyche also operates a tarot consultation business, Psyche Tarot. She has been published in The Cauldron, Konton, Tarot World Magazine, among other magazines, and her essay “Strategic Magick” appeared in Manifesting Prosperity (Megalithica, 2008).
Psyche's website is http://www.plutonica.net.
Hello Psyche,
I quite like Crowley’s definition but to explain it further I would have to point out the fundamental subjectivity of it all.
My inner scientist (who i love and trust) disregards the subjective experience as it is non-verifiable, and is oft tempted to ignore magical phenomena… But I argue with him and point out some of the truly amazing experiences I’ve had whilst working with magick. I point out some of the subjectivity required in much of modern physics.
Hugs from Sean
So is magick defined for you only in terms of experience, it cannot be quantified outside the self?
(aside from energy/prana/lifeforce magic) the Scientist in me has not seen a magical act that could be repeated time and time again under all circumstances; but the Artist in sees and feels magick everywhere all the time.
It is the scientist that would like to do the quantifying. The artist just enjoys the ride.
sean
Why aside from these things?
Crowley’s definition seems rather lazy to me.
Many traditions recognize the ‘natural world’, ‘præter-natural world’ and ‘super-natural world’. These might be related to the conscious mind, sub-conscious mind and the un-conscious minds.
Magic (i.e., thaumaturgy) suffuses the præter-natural and natural worlds, permeating the sub-conscious and conscious mind. Magic involves drawing energy downward – præternatural forces used for material purposes.
Magick (i.e., theurgy) operates in the super-natural, præternatural, and natural worlds while suffusing the un-conscious, sub-conscious and conscious minds. Theurgy involves drawing energy upward, which is “præter-natural aspectual forces in conjunction with super-natural aspects, used for spiritual purposes.”
The five letters of magic correspond with the pentagram and thaumaturgy.
The six letters of magick correspond with the hexagram and theurgy.
I think these distinctions bring us a little further clarity. Crowley’s ‘definition’ allows too many exceptions.
Namaste.
F.P.S.K.
Lazy how?
Is a belief in many worlds, or levels of reality (whatever that is) necessary or helpful?
I tend to get a little apprehensive when I hear the word “supernatural” – nothing can be outside of the natural order of things – if there’s something we see as being unnatural, or supernatural, what we mean is that we it doesn’t fit into our current understanding.
I like the simplicity of Crowley’s brief description, but I find his expanded definition in Magick Without Tears to be most illuminating.
Well, mostly I find it lazy because it allows all sorts of things to qualify as magick that I think ought not.
I’m not suggesting belief in anything, but as I conceive of thaumaturgy and theurgy, the model I presented has more accuracy than Crowley’s.
The specific semantics do get dicey, and I’m in no way attached to the labels. The entire concept of a “supernatural” world seems laden with paradox. I think we’re in complete agreement there, but it could just as easily be framed within a Qabalistic, tantric, Buddhist (etc) context.
Yes, he covers a respectable breadth in “Magick Without Tears”.
(What types of tags does this allow? How do I change fonts, add hypertext, etc?)
Namaste.
Well, mostly I find it lazy because it allows all sorts of things to qualify as magick that I think ought not.
Such as?
Most HTML tags are allowed.
Gotcha. WYSIWYG.
Relying on Crowley’s example, building a castle from popsickle sticks would be ‘magickal’. It satisfies every aspect of the suggested definition, but I don’t see how building a castle of popsickle sticks could possible relate to ‘magick’; which I equate with theurgy.
Building a castle of popsickle sticks might be a magical event, but not a magickal event.
(About this time I jump out the window, shortly after realizing I’ve fallen into the classic occultists’ penchant for ideosyncratic semantics.) :P
Namaste.
I like Crowley’s definition (and others that have said similar) very much. You want. You work. You get. There are plenty ways to go along that path, and magick is one of them. And yes, it’s subjective, everything begins subjectively. All actions, all physical manifestations, begin as a thought, a spark, a desire.
Magick does that on a grand scale, getting your mind right, your desires aligned, in order to create objective changes.
Does it do that on its own, independent of your will, or because of it?
I think it’s more like, with or without your active awareness. A person will may be more an autopilot, and yes, things will still happen according to will. Getting your will under your awareness and control will cause events also to fall more in the desired place.
Interesting that I came upon this link as I was listening to a voice memo to myself from yesterday:
“Luck is the Skill of the Magickian.”
As I closed the phone, I noticed it said “11:11″.
This may or may not be relevant to this thread ;-)
…can I add that I find it even more “Lucky” (perhaps “Synchronous” would be a more apt term) that I am just now reading What do we mean by “magick?”.
I’m sorry I’m not offering much more of a “concrete” and “specific” or “testable” definition (de-finite). I believe that much of the meme “Magick” has to do with “Mystery”, and is thus often a “catch-all” phrase for many “Mysterious Practices”. I find it rather silly to even try to find a deFinite way of deScribing what Magick “is”, particularly when Magick “is” about “Change”.
Frankly, this is line of questioning could go on for a great deal of time, arguing over specific semantical examples of comparing and contrasting what “is” with what “isn’t” “Magick”. Any definition seems therefore as good as any other, given that–like the meme “love”–it means so many things to so many people. Similar to the “Love” meme, people can argue over semantics for aeons (as they have, and will continue to do), but one thing that seems common is that when someone Experiences “Magick”, they know it.
And really, that’s what it’s all about, anyway.
Frankly, this is line of questioning could go on for a great deal of time, arguing over specific semantical examples of comparing and contrasting what “is” with what “isn’t” “Magick”.
That’s half the fun though, isn’t it? Finding out where the opposing party is at, clarifying what’s intended, and then finding common ground (or not finding it, and merely understanding another’s approach)?
Is it enough to think it’s all subjective? Where’s the line drawn between magick and delusion? Is it drawn?
I’ve been playing with 11:11 for weeks.
Cheers for another guide post.
Namaste.
[...] to subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!Last week we looked at definitions of magick1 and saw that most of them fail to pin down what’s [...]
[...] « Definitions of magick New movie about Aleister Crowley opens May 2008 [...]
[...] might explain what I think magick is. Ideosyncratic definitions abound! plutopsyche made a post on definitions of magick, and linked to a list of definitions culled from primary sources here. If we were to [...]
[...] in 2008 we looked at various definitions of magick, but I still believe Crowley’s remains the most elegant: Magick is the Art and Science of [...]