Entries Feed
What is RSS?« Feedback on definitions of magick and what we mean | Main | Magick, myth and change »
Magick and meaning
By Psyche | April 25, 2008
Stumble it!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
In reply to What do we mean by “magick”?1, Deo asks a number of important questions2:
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.
This brought to mind a post made by John Crow in his blog Treasure House of Pearls earlier in the year titled “Magic and the Categories of Discourse” where he wrote: “Until about 900 years ago, magic practice was simply done with very little thought as to why it works or how it works. It was just done and it just worked.”
Thinking about why and how magick works is relatively new. The psychological model is favoured by many, especially when explaining it to those outside the circle (so to speak). The question of what we mean when we say “magick” seems even more elusive. It’s a question of meaning.
Jordan Peterson in Maps of Meaning describes it this way:
The automatic attribution of meaning to things - or the failure to distinguish between them initially - is a characteristic of narrative, of myth, not of scientific thought.3
However, Peterson suggests that to trivialize meaning (myth) would be misguided.
Myth is not primitive proto-science. It is a qualitatively different phenomenon. Science might be considered “description of the world with regards to those aspects that are consensually apprehensible” or “specification of the most effective mode of reaching an end (given a defined end).” Myth can be more accurately regarded as “description of the world as it signifies (for action).” The mythic universe is a place to act, not a place to perceive. Myth describes things in terms of their unique or shared affective valence, their value, their motivational significance.4
It is meaning that defines how we interact with things, which may not necessarily be understood logically.
Deo asks if magick is necessary, and suggests that if it’s not, it is “metaphysically uninteresting” (so brutal!)
Tomorrow we’ll look at two arguments he presents, which I find intensely interesting.
Posts Related to What is magick?
- Itself a sort of reply to an essay read in episode 38 of Deo’s Shadow. [back]
- This is only an excerpt, see the original post for the full reply. [back]
- p. 2 [back]
- p. 9 [back]
Topics: Blogs, Esoterica, Magick, Media, Podcasts | RSS Feed | Trackback URI
« Feedback on definitions of magick and what we mean | Main | Magick, myth and change »
April 26th, 2008 at 2:27 am
When you say relatively new, in terms of thinking about how and why magic works, what do you define as “new”?
I’d agree that meaning provides context in terms of describing magic, though one also has to wonder about the meaning that magic ascribes to us.
[Reply]
April 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Whilst browsers can interpret it, I think your nested quote marks in your Title attribute - title=”What do we mean by “magick”?” - is not standard and can cause problems for some browsers. For sure, the LJ Feed has fallen over trying to interpret the post and I think that’s why.
LJ, I think, is interpreting it as title=”What do we mean by “ with the random nonsense following that would read a href=”etc” ?” if you ‘removed’ the title attribute.
Just a heads up really, nothing on-topic to say - sorry.
[Reply]
Psyche reply on April 26th, 2008:
Hrm, it looks fine in the feed. I tried quirking it, but LJ still seems to be having trouble with it.
Thanks for the heads up though!
[Reply]
May 4th, 2008 at 7:57 am
When people intellectualize the concept of magick, it loses something. It strikes me as an example of experiences that defy human explanations. One view is the truth is that which can only be felt to be understood.
[Reply]
Psyche reply on May 4th, 2008:
I feel it’s important to understand the terms we use and how we use them. Avoiding clarification allows room for sloppy thinking and misguided action. If we don’t make attempts to contextualize our experiences, of what value are they?
[Reply]