What do we mean by “magick”?
By Psyche | April 16, 2008 | Print This Post | E-mail This Post | 9 Comments
Earlier this week I posted about definitions of magick1. There’s some great discussion going on there, I encourage you to check it out and add your thoughts.
The (formerly?) Pagan podcast Deo’s Shadow has returned, with three new episodes posted this year after half a year hiatus. In a recent episode2 Deo shared an essay he’d written a few months earlier titled “Straight Goods on Magick” disparaging the lack of scientific rigour in magickal practice (focusing on Pagan spellwork, from the examples given), after which his wife, Mandy, is perplexed. She agrees with everything he’s said in principle, but she still feels he’s wrong on some fundamental level.
Matt (Deo) and Mandy are both delightful people, but let’s see if we can illuminate some of the problems with this piece.
It doesn’t help that Deo fails to clarify what he means by “magick”, especially as his usage of the term seems to change depending on which point he wants to disprove. The examples given all fall under the four basic models of magick outlined by Frater U.:.D.:. favouring the psychological model as a tool for challenging magick’s value. In one example Deo describes someone deriving confidence from ritual to be the cause that resulted in the desired result (finding love), yet this would be an example of effective magick under the psychological model, not a means to disprove it.
Deo states that “magick is the art and science of getting lucky on purpose”, and further that “science affects luck” suggesting the energy model (this ambiguous “luck”), then proceeds to deconstruct a straw man of his own creation. His “spooky action at a distance” implies the energetic model, where “the Universe” interacting to aid or hinder the results desired suggests the spirit model. Afterwards, Deo dubs himself a “magickal realist” which in context returns once again to the psychological model. There’s no coherency to his usage of the term “magick”.
Magick is an approach to interaction with reality that can take a variety of forms, it’s true, but it’s important to understand how we use the term and what the implications are for how we view and interact with the world as a result of these assumptions.
We’re already familiar with Crowley’s brief description: Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will, and its elegant simplicity, but perhaps the first letter in Magick Without Tears will further help clarify (you can find it on Hermetic.com here). Crowley goes into greater depth in a letter abundant with straightforward real-world examples of what magick “is” and how it works.
An illuminating extract:
Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one’s conditions. It is the Art of applying that understanding in action.
Deo’s right, it’s not a “hard” science like physics or biochemistry, humans aren’t capably of quantifying their minds, thoughts, feelings, reasonings, actions this way. Social sciences, anthropology and even economics attempt to track groups, but the individual remains elusive.
Postcript
Checking the stats for the blog, it appears this is Plutonica.net’s 100th post!
If you enjoyed this subscribe to the RSS feed!
What is RSS?
Footnotes:
- See “[cref 153]“. [back]
- See Deo’s Shadow episode 38. [back]
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.
“Deo’s right, it’s not a “hard” science like physics or biochemistry, humans aren’t capably of quantifying their minds, thoughts, feelings, reasonings, actions this way. Social sciences, anthropology and even economics attempt to track groups, but the individual remains elusive.”
Keep in mind, too, that the setting for scientific studies is usually quite different from that preferred by magicians, psychics, and other such folk for doing what it is they do. To me, magic requires a certain amount of mood and intimacy–not necessarily tons of bells and whistles, mind you. But the idea of trying to work magic in a sterile, clinical setting with strangers watching impassively would sort of be like trying to have sex in a similar setting.
The factors needed for an individual magician, shaman, etc. to reasonably replicate their results are so individualized, and are so dependent on the mood and moment that it’s better to study such things in a qualifiable rather than quantifiable manner.
I agree with Lupa. It is very difficult to fit “Magick” into nice, neat little boxes. It’s hard to even say why this is so difficult. Part of the difficulty is because Magick is so ineffable.
In giving this meme more thought, I came upon a text file addressing such:
As I try and find words that don’t define Magick so much as “point at the Meaning of (the idea behind) Magick”, I find myself constantly coming back to several words:
Change
Intent
Desire
Control
Meaning
Semiotics
Esoteric
What is often considered “Magick” is really just the Art of Living an Intentional Life, imbuing all Actions with Intention and congruence. Also, what are called “Rituals” in Magick are (what are called in NLP) types of intense and unique Anchors. I find that when lesser means do not suffice for Creating Change, I “bring out the ‘big guns’”. This basically means that I Create and perform some series of Actions that could perhaps be loosely classified as “Practicing Magick”.
One way that the whole “Every Action is a Magickal Action” could be extrapolated to so-called “mundane life” is via simple Psychological Practices. One key to “Living” Magick is to always be asking yourself, “Is this ________ helping me to accomplish my Intent?” It is all too easy and common for wee humans to get caught up, distracted, & lose our Focus. “Keep your eye on the Prize (Intent)!” The Intent of an Action/Behavior/etc. should always be kept in mind, checked and re-checked, to insure most efficient acquisition. E.g., if you have playing a Game, is it to Relax, have Fun, spend time with friends, prove Uberness, or for a Cathartic Release? It can be even more useful to try and agree on a shared Intent when working with others. Reminding everyone involved in the ultimate Intents can help quell a great many potential conflicts and problems.
What is often considered “Magick” is really just the Art of Living an Intentional Life, imbuing all Actions with Intention and congruence.
This is one of the definitions Crowley uses, and it’s the one I like the best, too: magick as an approach to reality, not a “thing”, not a “lifestyle”, but a way of thinking, acting and moving in, through, and with the world.
This is a delightful treatment of my essay. Had I known the responses would have been this serious, I would have attempted to be more careful rather than sarcastic! :-)
There is a great thread going on in our forums (click on my name above to get there), where a couple scientists are hoping to hone in on a feasible understanding of magic. I have a feeling that you could add some valuable insight to this discussion.
Best,
deo
The humour was good, but your usage of “magick” was inconsistent. It’s a little like arguing that love is cannibalism because some people say they love spaghetti and others say they love children. You really needed to clarify what you meant first.
Thanks, though, I’ll check it out.
Our understanding of our interior mapping remains infantile, and I’m more than a little hesitant to recommend examining what is essentially a subjective approach to interpreting reality with rigorous objective analysis.
For magicians, what really matters is: were there any results obtained – and rarely how they were obtained.
To be honest, I really didn’t have the ‘magical models’ model of magic in mind when writing the essay. I think the magical models perspective is a very helpful device, so long as (as you mention on your Spiral Nature site) you see it as “a means of understanding the practical possibilities of various magical systems rather than as definitive theories and/or explanations of the way magic works.”
However, I’m interested in the question: Is there such a thing (ontologically/metaphysically) as magic? The magical models perspective allows us to assume that there is, and it then outlines ways to conceptualize the methods and effects of various systems/ritual styles. With regard to magical models, my question is necessarily less pragmatic: What is the mechanism, if any, that delivers the effects from a ritual framed by any of the given models? Is this mechanism identical with magic? In other words, does magic deserve to be an ontological category? If not, then it’s metaphysically uninteresting and a worldview that lacks it can still be a complete worldview.
As for your objection that I conflate the magical models:
I would be willing to accept that there may be different mechanisms for the different models, as opposed to all models being different means to the same mechanism. In this respect, a single argument might eliminate one of the models while the rest remain unscathed. To this end, your criticism of my conflation of the models is warranted. I should have at least been more careful in anticipating this objection.
However, I don’t think your objection hits its mark. The reason is that I believe there is a single kind of argument that can target all of the models. It works like this (and this is basically just a more careful exegesis of the thought process underlying my sloppy essay, and using the concept of the magical models). Either (A) the magical models identify different means to different mechanisms, such that the word ‘magic’ is used to name a loose family of practices; or (B) the magical models identify different means to the same mechanism, such that the reference of the word ‘magic’ subsumes the different models.
In case (A), each of the mechanisms have to be considered separately. You mention in your original post that I use the psychological model to “challenge magick’s value.” The reason that I do this is because it seems to me that using the word ‘magic’ for this approach is arbitrary, or just a reference to *ritual style* rather than to any particular kind of special mechanism: Because the effects of the psychological model are the most easily explained by a non-magical vocabulary, the psychological model is most easily targeted by a deflationary argument. If the only thing that makes the psychological model ‘magic’ is because one uses sigils instead of conventional psychotherapy as the treatment style, then we are not talking about the common concept ‘magic’. And this is an important point: My argument was against the common conception of magic (as one often, admittedly, finds in neo-Paganism), which is as an ontological category. You can redefine magic to escape the arguments, but then is it magic any longer? I don’t consider magic to be ‘real’ as an ontological component of the universe if it merely names a style of activity irrespective of any kind of mechanism underlying its alleged efficacy. And if it’s not real, it’s not interesting. I can make up any imaginary thing that I want and play with it all day long. That’s fine, so far as it goes, but it’s not very interesting from a metaphysical point of view and a worldview that lacks it can still be a complete worldview.
So in case (A), you have a discrete set of practices with the family name ‘magic’. Then, each form has to stand up to the same kind of criticism that I have leveled at the psychological model above: First, does the model in question fit a common conception of magic? Second, if so, is there any evidence that such a magical style is efficacious? Third, if the desired effect follows the ritual, are the effects free from a readily available alternative explanation using a non-magical vocabulary? If not, the style’s content is metaphysically vacuous, and so the name ‘magic’ can only refer to its ritual format or conceptualization scheme, and this is metaphysically uninteresting. I think at least one of these questions must be answered in the negative for each magical style. Because this same argument applies to all of the models, I don’t think that the conflation of the different models is problematic.
In case (B), where ‘magic’ names the mechanism itself, then a conflation of the models is doubly warranted because the models themselves do nothing to differentiate the target of the attack, which is questioning whether there is justification for any kind of ontological category called ‘magic’. Unfortunately, the conflation of the models leads to a rather robust view of magic (more in line with the common conception, incidentally) that is even more susceptible to the above argument than any of the models standing alone.
Some of the responses I’ve had to the essay have advocated a view of magic that is not ontological, but rather aesthetic. Magic, on this view, is retrospective and descriptive enterprise. We can use magical vocabularies to ‘make meaning’ in our lives. In this sense, the only ‘effect’ of magic is on the subjective interpretation of one’s surroundings (similar to the deflationary interpretation of the psychological model). This is good so far as it goes, and it shows that there may be a place in the world for magic, just as there’s a place in the world for fantasy literature. But it is a concession that magic is not real.
Some people might be reading this and they may say, “Well duh!” I get the feeling that this is your perspective, given your comment about “what is essentially a subjective approach to interpreting reality.” But I think such a conclusion will strike against the hopes and beliefs of many magic practitioners. It was at these hopes and beliefs of magic as a real thing that I leveled my essay.
Also:
I found what I believe to be a typo in your original post “science affects luck” should read “magic affects luck”.
And the magical realist bit: I *used* to call myself a magical realist, which is to say, someone who subscribes to the ontological interpretation of magic. I have since dropped that designation (and opinion).
And I forgot to mention that the discussion on our forums is actually on page 3 and 4 of the link I sent (otherwise you’ll have to wade through a lot of other stuff).
I will be curious to see what you think of the two chapters of Multi-Media Magic which I devoted to definitions of magic. I’d recommend also reading Edward Schiappa’s Defining Reality, which is a book all about definitions and one every magician ought to read.
[...] again there was a lot of great feedback, once again I’m only going to share a brief excerpt here, but do encourage you to check out [...]