- Joined
- Aug 14, 2025
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 943
- Awards
- 7
There was a great discussion in the recent thread 'Chaos Magick - Impossible for beginners?' , especially this amazing gem from @Magpie :
"Which adds to a pattern I am starting to see - if someone is predisposed towards magick i.e. does not hold detrimental thought-forms and "gets" many magickal concepts intuitively, chaos magick cuts the fluff and gets right to the point, even if the person had no prior experience. But if someone need to do some serious work before any proper INTENTIONAL magick is done, chaos magick is either a cul-de-sack or an outright threat."
Im not gonna lie, that was good, really good. It got me to thinking (dangerous lol), and we have all seen it. Some who arent ready , ungrounded, or carrying unhealthy frameworks try to get into magick and it either breaks them, or does nothing for them. But for some? Yeah they are just off to the races.
That raises some questions worth talking about:
1. Are some people more predisposed to magick? If so, what types of people are we talking about specifically? What is that predisposition exactly?
2. Can someone who isnt predisposed to magick become a competent practitioner? Or is it like having a bad ear for music, they can learn but there is a ceiling?
I personally love the music metaphor. Its a perfect fit here. Anyone can learn to pluck strings on a guitar, but not everyone can make it sing. Not everyone can play something that makes you cry. Same with magick (in my opinion) anyone can learn rituals, or spells, but not everyone can let go, hold the voltage or feel the current enough to connect.
To me, it isnt plug and play. If it were, I believe we would have figured it all out by now and we arent even close (maybe its just me which is fair). The needle hasnt moved much in that regard, its still as mysterious and elusive as it has always been. The harder you try, the further away it slips.
I love the term predisposition so much more than the concept of 'chosen' because predisposed sidesteps the obvious question of 'by whom and for what?' theological quicksand. And that doesnt get us anywhere. Predisposed is so much cleaner, so now we can get deeper into this topic I have been circling for a while and would like more thoughts and ideas on.
"Which adds to a pattern I am starting to see - if someone is predisposed towards magick i.e. does not hold detrimental thought-forms and "gets" many magickal concepts intuitively, chaos magick cuts the fluff and gets right to the point, even if the person had no prior experience. But if someone need to do some serious work before any proper INTENTIONAL magick is done, chaos magick is either a cul-de-sack or an outright threat."
Im not gonna lie, that was good, really good. It got me to thinking (dangerous lol), and we have all seen it. Some who arent ready , ungrounded, or carrying unhealthy frameworks try to get into magick and it either breaks them, or does nothing for them. But for some? Yeah they are just off to the races.
That raises some questions worth talking about:
1. Are some people more predisposed to magick? If so, what types of people are we talking about specifically? What is that predisposition exactly?
2. Can someone who isnt predisposed to magick become a competent practitioner? Or is it like having a bad ear for music, they can learn but there is a ceiling?
I personally love the music metaphor. Its a perfect fit here. Anyone can learn to pluck strings on a guitar, but not everyone can make it sing. Not everyone can play something that makes you cry. Same with magick (in my opinion) anyone can learn rituals, or spells, but not everyone can let go, hold the voltage or feel the current enough to connect.
To me, it isnt plug and play. If it were, I believe we would have figured it all out by now and we arent even close (maybe its just me which is fair). The needle hasnt moved much in that regard, its still as mysterious and elusive as it has always been. The harder you try, the further away it slips.
I love the term predisposition so much more than the concept of 'chosen' because predisposed sidesteps the obvious question of 'by whom and for what?' theological quicksand. And that doesnt get us anywhere. Predisposed is so much cleaner, so now we can get deeper into this topic I have been circling for a while and would like more thoughts and ideas on.