Entries Feed
What is RSS?« Magick and meaning | Main | Perdurabo film »
Magick, myth and change
By Psyche | April 26, 2008
Stumble it!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Continuing on from yesterday’s post, Deo challenges the models of magick, and the very value of magick itself:
[...] 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? [...]
Well, there is the fact that it works. Merely thinking “I will be confident tomorrow and ask that girl out”, to use the earlier example of a love spell, rarely seems to do the trick. The person can tell themselves day in and day out that this time, they’ll do it, this time they’ll approach her, but really, nothing has changed from one day to the next.
However, as Deo mentioned in his original essay, doing a “spell” for love can confer the desired confidence. What’s changed here?
Deo elaborates:
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?
A number of assumptions are made here. Frankly, I’m not clear on what the “common conception” is? In chaote circles the psychological model, cybernetic model and, to a lesser extent, the energetic model are favoured as explanations of “how it works”. In ceremonial it ranges from spiritual to psychological. Pagans seem to like a cross between spiritual and energetic. These conceptions differ radically, and granted, most are likely unaware that their understanding of magick fits these models, but congruence can be found nonetheless.
The surface ritual might look the same, take the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram for example. In the spiritual model vibrating in Hebrew connects the magician with a concept of the divine, the archangels called have a spiritual reality. In the energetic model vibrating may connect the magician with the energies of the Universe, and the archangels represent different frequencies of energy being tapped in to. The psychological model would dictate that altered states of consciousness were being achieved with vibrating words in Hebrew a method of self-hypnosis, and the archangels representing archetypes called upon in the mind alone. The information or cybernetic model connects with raw information or memes, not always breaking down how they’re understood. In all cases the magicians in ritual would look and sound the same. What we’re looking at here is the underlying structure of belief in what’s happening when we “do magick”.
Magickal “styles” are another matter altogether when it comes down to the work done (meditation, prayer, divination, astrology, kabbalah, sigils, entity creation and/or manipulation, invocation, evocation, in a Golden Dawn, OTO, IOT flavour, etc.) - any of the models may apply (with varying degrees of relevance).
Deo continues:
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.
These are good questions. Your average chaote would respond with “If the desired results follow the ritual, who cares?”, but we’re looking for more here. Though I’m not sure I understand why the “conceptualization scheme” is being thrown out? Isn’t that the crux of it?
This brings us to B:
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.
Aleister Crowley said that Thelema (Will) is 90% discipline, and I would argue that the same is of course true for magick. Crowley’s definition of magick as “the Science and Art of causing Change in conformity with Will” continues to bear out. How “hard” a science might be debated, but the crux of this is change enacted by a disciplined directive. Opening a door can qualify as a magickal act.
Jordan Peterson, again in Maps of Meaning, writes:
“We all produce models of what is and what should be, and how to transform one into the other. We change our behaviour, when the consequences of that behaviour are not what we would like. But sometimes mere alteration in behaviour is insufficient. We must change not only what we do, but what we think is important. This means reconsideration of the nature of the motivational significance of the present, and reconsideration of the ideal nature of the future. This is a radical, even revolutionary transformation, and it is a very complex process in its realization - but mythic thinking has represented the nature of such change in great and remarkable detail.”
However, the heart of it is here, where Deo says:
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.
We can debate the nature of reality, but when it comes down to it, I don’t have an argument for this. If the models of magick are not sufficiently interesting, if narrative myth is not perssuasive or satisfying, if one’s practice is not personally meaningful, what’s left?
Check out episode 28 of Deo’s Shadow, and see the on-going discussion in the Deo’s Shadow Forums, too.
Posts Related to What is magick?
Topics: Blogs, Chaos Magick, Esoterica, Magick, Media, Philosophica, Podcasts, Thelema | RSS Feed | Trackback URI
« Magick and meaning | Main | Perdurabo film »
April 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Aleister Crowley said that Thelema (Will) is 90% discipline, and I would argue that the same is of course true for magick. Crowley’s definition of magick as “the Science and Art of causing Change in conformity with Will” continues to bear out.
I would argue that at least 90% of effecting change anywhere is discipline of some kind — putting in the hours to know what you’re doing and how it works. Do you think magick is really any different?
My hunch is a lot of people come to magic with the idea that it is easy, a “quick fix” when other avenues have failed. Those who stick with it seem to do so because they have some appreciation for the discipline involved — or it’s a pursuit where the discipline aspect feels right to them. (Each of us has things we’re willing to work hard toward, and things we can’t be bothered with, I think.) Or perhaps it’s their first real exposure to discipline, but their experience with that discipline then guides them to be disciplined in other parts of their life.
What do you think?
[Reply]
Psyche reply on April 29th, 2008:
I think you’ve captured it well, though I’m not as convinced that those who can’t commit to discipline in a magickal setting are any more likely to apply it in other areas of their lives.
[Reply]
April 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I don’t think using Crowley’s definition works. You say opening a door qualifies as a magical act, but I could just as easily argue that it qualifies as an act based on the neurochemistry involved in making the action happen. Or I could argue it from a physics point of view. Crowley’s definition is a perspective on how to approach the world, but it is just a perspective and a limited one, when it comes to defining magic, because his definition is ultimately sloppy. Even in his later explanations, he never provides what I would consider an adequate explanation of magic, because he can’t show how magic is different from any other paradigm/perspective chooses to adopt. It might also help, if Crowley really explained what the and meaning of discipline is…but he doesn’t do that, nor does he ever define what science, art, change, will, etc are…so he’s using equally conceptual and vague terms to describe and define magic. As Beth W notes above, any effected changed involves discipline…it does not always involve magic.
[Reply]
caelum rainieri reply on April 27th, 2008:
Personally, I reject all definitions of magic(k) as incomplete and insufficient. How can anyone possibly define an entity which isn’t understood?
[Reply]
Taylor Ellwood reply on April 27th, 2008:
The question then is can it be understood? I disagree with you and say it can be understood. However, I’ll also add the caveat that how one places magic within his or her paradigm influences that understanding and that something which is seemingly forgotten is that it may be better to derive your own definition of magic, based on your experiences, as opposed to relying on anyone else’s definition of magic.
[Reply]
caelum rainieri reply on April 28th, 2008:
I guess the point of contention is what we
mean by the word “understand”. Since the
original context of this thread is a scientific
examination of magic, that’s the level of
understanding that I’m referring to. Magic
cannot be described in a scientific way
that’s provable and reproducible, which
leaves magic as a religioous concept. In
that sense, magic can certainly be “understood”
in a variety of different and personal ways,
just as we “understand” the gods.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s input on this question, although I find the exercise ultimately frustrating. As I said to Taylor, how can you define something that isn’t understood? You can’t.
I place magic firmly within the realm of Religion, rather than Science. Like the gods, we know that magic exists. We know that we participate in it. For me, that’s sufficient.
On the other hand, if you believe the Zen Buddhist doctrine of “No Mind” as espoused by Takuan Soho in The Unfettered Mind, then even the attempt at mentally defining magic can negatively impact one’s interaction with it.
[Reply]
xi_o_teaz reply on April 28th, 2008:
…although I find the exercise ultimately frustrating. As I said to Taylor, how can you define something that isn’t understood? You can’t.
I agree. As Magick is something which, by its very nature, exceeds the Dualistic “Mental Plane”, I think trying to fit it into a nice tidy little box of Mental Understanding is a futile exercise–much like most attempts at trying to pin-down exact specifications of an ineffable process will always be.
I place magic firmly within the realm of Religion, rather than Science.
I’d place Magick in an intersecting space betwixt Art, Religion, & Science. I think that “Magick” is more “technique” than placing it wholly within “Religion” would allow. I think there is far too much Mystery & Transcendence involved in the Magickal Path to ignore the Religious aspects, as well. And Magick, by its very nature, is a highly personal & Creative Artistic endeavor.
On the other hand, if you believe the Zen Buddhist doctrine of “No Mind” as espoused by Takuan Soho in The Unfettered Mind, then even the attempt at mentally defining magic can negatively impact one’s interaction with it.
Being a big fan of Eastern Paths, I think there is definitely something to this argument, as well.
[Reply]
Psyche reply on April 29th, 2008:
I’d place Magick in an intersecting space betwixt Art, Religion, & Science. I think that “Magick” is more “technique” than placing it wholly within “Religion” would allow. I think there is far too much Mystery & Transcendence involved in the Magickal Path to ignore the Religious aspects, as well. And Magick, by its very nature, is a highly personal & Creative Artistic endeavor.
Have you read Lionel Snell’s S.S.O.T.B.M.E. and his compass rose breakdown of magick, art, religion and science? It’s an interesting approach.
[Reply]
xi_o_teaz reply on April 29th, 2008:
I’ve not read that, although I’ve certainly heard of his book a number of times. This was the first time I’d ever thought of Magick as intersecting more than a couple of fields, (mostly “Science” & “Religion”).
I’ll have to check it out. Thanks for the heads up.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
To read about other people’s perception, understanding and experience with magic is different than exploring what this means in a practical sense. Self-doubt kicks in.
Carlos Castaneda is a fascinating example of an individual who went further than simply reading about cultural anthropology. He took steps to develop skills other people didn’t necessarily believe or understand. They wouldn’t or couldn’t without choosing to find the courage to forge a path. Each path is subjective and perceptible as reality to only to a person experiencing it.
[Reply]
Psyche reply on May 4th, 2008:
To read about other people’s perception, understanding and experience with magic is different than exploring what this means in a practical sense. Self-doubt kicks in.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean, could you elaborate on this?
[Reply]
May 4th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Whenever you pick up a book and read about someone else’s life and choices, you may identify on some level, live vicariously through a different existence, or find some way to transcend where you are to share similar experiences in your own way.
Your level of identification, belief or disbelief about magic and its potential, relates to whether you permit doubt to control your mind. If you give into doubt and scepticism, then you build a wall around the skills and abilities you have yet to uncover, accetp and develop in yourself.
[Reply]