magick- the thing in itself
-
Hello all, I'm new to the forum.
I assume that this forum holds members of both the OTO and the A.'.A.'., so I'm fairly sure answers to my questions can be found here. My question is this:
When a Thelemite says 'magick,' what exactly are they talking about? Crowley has that line, 'any intentional act is a Magickal act,' and while I can see his point, sometimes this seems to me to be dodging the question rather. Magick, in the various books and articles I have read (mostly Crowley's) seems to vary greatly in shape, ranging from a simple psychological exercise (i.e. Introduction to the Goetia) to the summoning of actual spirits. Moreover, the program of enlightenment, at least in the A.'.A.'., involves strange experiences such as the crossing of the Abyss, which can only be explained, from what I've read of it, by either an extended 'vision quest'/hallucination or a metaphor of titanic proportions.
So, which is it? Is magick a path to truth which involves real paranormal experience, or is it simply one which, while just as valid, owes as much to metaphor and mythic truth as any of the other great spiritual traditions and religions? -
@veritas_in_nox said
"When a Thelemite says 'magick,' what exactly are they talking about?"
That depends on which Thelemite is saying it.
"Moreover, the program of enlightenment, at least in the A.'.A.'., involves strange experiences such as the crossing of the Abyss"
It is a very serious error (and a very common one) even to be concerning yourself with crossing the Abyss until you've attained the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. I dare say that one who isn't an adept doesn't have more than the vaguest clue what "crossing the Abyss" even means. It seems to be a huge obsession with people brand new to magick.
"which can only be explained, from what I've read of it, by either an extended 'vision quest'/hallucination or a metaphor of titanic proportions."
Intensifying my point above: Not even a faint clue what this is about
"So, which is it? Is magick a path to truth which involves real paranormal experience, or is it simply one which, while just as valid, owes as much to metaphor and mythic truth as any of the other great spiritual traditions and religions?"
It depends on who you ask, and the context in which you ask it. I'm also not sure why you have an either-or here, since the methods leading to paranormal experience commonly rely quite heavily on "mythic truth" as well as on (what I assume you mean by) "the other great spiritual traditions," etc.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Intensifying my point above: Not even a faint clue what this is about
"Not in the slightest. I freely admit it. Maybe I shouldn't have used this example.
@Jim Eshelman said
"It depends on who you ask, and the context in which you ask it. I'm also not sure why you have an either-or here, since the methods leading to paranormal experience commonly rely quite heavily on "mythic truth" as well as on (what I assume you mean by) "the other great spiritual traditions," etc."
I see your point here. Okay, then; is it both? The question that I was trying to ask is that at various times, even Crowley seems to move back and forth between seeing magick as an entirely metaphorical experience and seeing magick as something more. The 'more' part features more often, but when Crowley comes up with something like his Introduction to the Goetia, it casts doubt (for me) on the whole business. I have emailed several organisations (not all Thelemite) on this subject, and (when I get a response) the answers talk about magic(k) being a subjective experience, which I didn't find answered my question.
-
First of all I would like to remind you that Crowley wrote the "introduction to the Goetia" (as you call it) when he was very young in the field of his researches as compared to when he wrote the bulk of The Equinox or The Book of Thoth (among others), and I don't consider those writers to be exactly the same person. Nor would I expect in five or ten years time for you to be the same person you are today. This is why, I believe, Jim above is saying "it depends on who you ask." (I might add, "...and when.")
Magick will be both the subjective and the objective results you discover. For me, the simplest answer is that magick is any act that produces results with intent. If I convince you of something and I meant to, that is as much a magickal act as would be if I lit various candles, incanted barbarous names and discovered a bejeweled store of treasures. As well, if I work long and hard at various programs and changed my entire definition of the World, that too (albeit subjective) is a magickal act. The schoolbook (hehe) definition is even more simple, "Magick is the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with will." (I take that to mean even causing water to reach a specific temperature, although that may not seem supernatural enough for some.)
I guess I'd like to add that the "science" part involves a required level of critical thinking and the "art" part is all about having a certain poetic soul. Somehow the synthesis of the two is crucial.
-
@veritas_in_nox said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Intensifying my point above: Not even a faint clue what this is about"Not in the slightest. I freely admit it. Maybe I shouldn't have used this example."
In a sense, it's a great example, because it's a pretty widespread preoccupation. It was partly to discourage it (or at least not add to the problem) that I ended The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'. at the 7=4 chapter.
"Okay, then; is it both? The question that I was trying to ask is that at various times, even Crowley seems to move back and forth between seeing magick as an entirely metaphorical experience and seeing magick as something more. The 'more' part features more often, but when Crowley comes up with something like his Introduction to the Goetia, it casts doubt (for me) on the whole business. I have emailed several organisations (not all Thelemite) on this subject, and (when I get a response) the answers talk about magic(k) being a subjective experience, which I didn't find answered my question."
Crowley wrote for different audiences. He also had his own growth cycle over the course of his life, and had deeper understanding of some things at later points in his life than in earlier ones. In reading Crowley, always know the approximate year something was written, and put it in the context of his unfolding; and also note who the target audience was. (Was it for the general public? For initiates only? For people of a particular grade? For O.T.O. members in particular? For someone else? This modified what he wrote. You can't place the whole of his life's work on an equal standing.)
For example, his edition of The Goetia was mostly prepared in 1903 (before Liber Legis was received, at a time that Crowley was what, today and in A.'.A.'. terms, we'd consider a 3=8), and then published in 1904 with a little editorial modification. It's one of his very earliest writings. This doesn't mean it's wrong - but it does mean that you should view it in the context of Crowley not yet even being an Adept (in the A.'.A.'. sense of the term).
Since you seem to be particularly interested in the subject of evocation and the nature of magical phenomena produced thereby, here's a quote from my own recent book, 776 1/2, in a section discussing evocation:
@776 1/2 said
"Evocation is a little difficult to define simply, because diverse reputable authorities proffer conflicting definitions. In simple terms, this is the classical technique of commerce with that category of nonmaterial beings commonly called “demons” (daimones) or “spirits.” Some hold that these “spirits” are objective, distinct beings. Others side with Crowley’s view at the time he edited The Lesser Key of Solomon, that, “The spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain.” Still others, more familiar with later psychologies, credit them as semi-autonomous aspects of subconsciousness. We do not undertake to resolve these differences in the present place. What can be said with general agreement is that the “spirits” in question are “elementals” in the pure sense of the word, i.e., constituent parts of a microcosm. They are evoked – called forth, or called out – whereas Divine and archangelic beings are invoked, or called into oneself, to fill oneself. These elementary spirits are native to the densest parts of Yetzirah, verging on physical manifestation; thus, magicians who aspire to have direct magical impact on physical phenomena often favor them."
-
So, it's both metaphor and reality?
-
@veritas_in_nox said
"So, it's both metaphor and reality?"
Metaphor is one way to express reality. (That is, it's just one of many structures used in language.)
And, in which of the Four Worlds are you trying to define "reality?"
-
Assiah and Yetzirah. As to metaphor, I agree that metaphor is a way to express reality. Let me clarify: when I said 'both metaphor and reality,' I should have said 'both metaphorical and literal reality.'
-
@veritas_in_nox said
"Assiah and Yetzirah. As to metaphor, I agree that metaphor is a way to express reality. Let me clarify: when I said 'both metaphor and reality,' I should have said 'both metaphorical and literal reality.'"
Again... those are simply two different uses of language.
I suspect you mean both "reality in the physical universe" and "reality in the psychological universe." The answer is, yes, it is both - in the first case, that's what it is in Assiah and, ikn the second case, that's what it is in Yetzirah.
-
Thanks for your help. Sorry for grilling you.