• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

[Opinion] Psychological Model is Correct, Technically

Everyone's got one.

Anziel_Merkaba

Apprentice
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
66
Reaction score
159
Awards
1
As the title says, the psychological model is correct, technically.

To give some background into why I say as such, my practice is based on Hermeticism. In Hermeticism, the very first principle you learn is that 'The All is the Mind'. Hermetic practitioners for the most part agree that God as a concept (at least in the Judeo-Christian sense) is All, and that our practice is to bring us 'closer to God', or to 'personify yourself as God'. The primary method of doing this is to fully internalize that All is One, and that you are One in the All. It's almost an entirely mental form of practice, at least once you get far enough along.

In any case, regardless of the Hermetic concept of All being the Mind, the psychological model works under the concept that your practice is all in your head, and that all that you do in your practice is just to preload your mind with what is essentially psychological conditioning to subtly alter your state of thought to better accomplish your goals. So what happens when you take the psychological model, throw out the idea that your mental world is completely unconnected with the physical world, and jack yourself up on 'self inflicted delusions of power and grandeur'? You suddenly have a psychological model practitioner who's workings are far outside the scope of what most psychological practitioners believe to be possible.

Back to the Hermetic concepts, since All is the Mind, and All is One is All, and you are One in All, the most effective practitioners would be those who realize it's all in their head and bend the world to their will, which is something someone who has broken free from the perceived limitations of the psychological model could easily accomplish if they realized that they could.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2023
Messages
140
Reaction score
618
Awards
4
For the most part each of the models came from or took off due the pop science/religion views of the time. Psychological model = psychology, etc...

P Model is just a favorite because it brings anyone/everyone into the camp of I can do magic. And it makes everything feel a little more science-y so less superstitious.

I’ve never been impressed with what most hardcore zealots of the P model can achieve.

It’s not bad but the whole it’s all in your head you just don’t know how big your head is just a little to lazy of a way to dismiss what most practitioners throughout history have experienced/discovered.

-Eld
 

Anziel_Merkaba

Apprentice
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
66
Reaction score
159
Awards
1
For the most part each of the models came from or took off due the pop science/religion views of the time. Psychological model = psychology, etc...

P Model is just a favorite because it brings anyone/everyone into the camp of I can do magic. And it makes everything feel a little more science-y so less superstitious.

I’ve never been impressed with what most hardcore zealots of the P model can achieve.

It’s not bad but the whole it’s all in your head you just don’t know how big your head is just a little to lazy of a way to dismiss what most practitioners throughout history have experienced/discovered.

-Eld
Oh, I'm not saying the hardcore psychological model people are achieving much, just that when you apply the lens of Hermeticism to the psychological model it becomes more than just self-hypnosis to make yourself feel better.

I'm a Hermetic practitioner at my core, but I'm just bringing up the parallels that the psychological model has with hermetic philosophy. I'm not dismissing what other practitioners do or have done so much as just pointing out that most of what a lot of practitioners do is more focused on concrete material goals than expanding awareness of the self and the world.
 

8Lou1

Apostle
Warned
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
1,716
Awards
14
a woman would say men work different then us, but that could be applicable in every medical area.
i for myself researched the DSM (black book for labeling psychiatric diseases) and gotten sicker until almost spiritual death. on the other hand i was working with aquino in the astral, so i might have been a DSM too early.

anyways after covid we invented a new psychiatric disease and its called parental burn out syndrome and i used to have it. thanks to wf i was able to heal after i threw out the kids and can be read in my posts.

so, my counter queste as a woman is to make men accept the truth that the chicken was first and then the egg and its both their privilege to enjoy that without shame.
 

Lemongrass00

Disciple
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
644
Reaction score
1,460
Awards
13
you just don’t know how big your head is just a little to lazy of a way to dismiss what most practitioners throughout history have experienced/discovered.
Dismiss it how? The entire point of the p model is acknowledging how fluid reality is, there are no hard lines, and every experience is real.

A vision of an HGA is still as meaningful to someone who follows the p model as someone who literally thinks it’s an angel, it is just interpreted differently.

I find the people who are hardcore for entity centric views need the reassurance that there is some “objective” reality that exists, and usually do not understand or are fearful that it really is just us, again which I view as a psychological crutch.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2022
Messages
245
Reaction score
613
Awards
4
I know I've expressed this before but I kind of straddle the fence on Sp model vs Psy model.

I lean more towards the Psy model personally but leave enough room to allow for the fact that some things exist that lie beyond what we have created and came into existence on their own.

But I'd say either or both models are valid ways of seeing things and that anyone who believes either model solely can reach a High level of effectiveness with their Magick and what things they achieve and manifest.

I do believe these things are fluid and that at different points in the path you will think one is more true than the other and then say "hmmm... maybe both are true."
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2023
Messages
140
Reaction score
618
Awards
4
I find the people who are hardcore for entity centric views need the reassurance that there is some “objective” reality that exists, and usually do not understand or are fearful that it really is just us, again which I view as a psychological crutch.
I’ll try to get back on later to address the other points. And I’m not dismissing that the p model can be a useful way to look/work with magic but I find the exact opposite to be the case more often then not:

I find the people who are hardcore for a psychological centric view need the reassurance that there is no “objective” reality that exists, and usually do not understand or are fearful that there really might be something out there besides themselves, again which I view as a psychological crutch. (edits are of course mine)

-Eld
 

Vandheer

Disciple
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
934
Reaction score
2,258
Awards
12
I find the people who are hardcore for entity centric views need the reassurance that there is some “objective” reality that exists, and usually do not understand or are fearful that it really is just us, again which I view as a psychological crutch.
If all is mind, it doesn't make it less objective anyways. Hell it would make it objective, since all is mind.

Critisizers are mostly stuck-up people that whine about "muh real magic" when they see someone practices anything other than good old middle age grimoires.

The concept of mind is real important in Hermetic thought, but God is beyond Nous/Mind if you look at traditional texts. Obviously we can never tell if the susbtance behind everything is mind (which people confuse with thoughts) or entirely something else.
 

Lemongrass00

Disciple
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
644
Reaction score
1,460
Awards
13
I’ll try to get back on later to address the other points. And I’m not dismissing that the p model can be a useful way to look/work with magic but I find the exact opposite to be the case more often then not:

I find the people who are hardcore for a psychological centric view need the reassurance that there is no “objective” reality that exists, and usually do not understand or are fearful that there really might be something out there besides themselves, again which I view as a psychological crutch. (edits are of course mine)

-Eld
I see where you are coming from, and I am sure there are more hardcore psychological model believers than I, but I am not implying we are making imaginary friends or our visualizations are just figments of the imagination in order to self hypnotize ourselves into thinking it is 'real'.

I am more in favor of the view that every person is God already, because we all share the origin point of the source, all of the created universe exists within us. Every 'angel', 'demon', or any others sort of entity corresponds to a part of ourselves, for instance the qualities of intellect and communication we attribute to Raphael, it is an abstraction so we can better work with that part of ourselves by using the symbol of an angel and correspondences to communicate to our own subconscious. Humans have been personifying and compartmentalizing concepts and ideas for our entire history, because it is easier to work with and impacts us deeper.

The psychological model does not hold everything is the practitioner because of some sort of fear that if something is 'outside' us then it is out of our control, as we already acknowledge that we do not have control, as nobody has complete control of themselves and 99% of the population barely has control at all, and lives being dictated by the tides of emotional and their own subconscious, and only has the illusion of consciousness.

Also, in my own personal experience, reality is anything except objective. Two people can experience the same situation and one can be crushed and the other can be ecstatic, these are both real realities but are not objective. You can also work on the inner planes and manipulate and materialize reality in dreams, which to the senses cannot be separated from waking reality, these are also very real experiences. Quantum physics also shows that reality is not solid and anything but stable, but exists as quantum wave functions representing pure possibility.
Post automatically merged:

The concept of mind is real important in Hermetic thought, but God is beyond Nous/Mind if you look at traditional texts. Obviously we can never tell if the susbtance behind everything is mind (which people confuse with thoughts) or entirely something else.
I interpret the meaning of that thought as God is beyond our intellectual minds, which I wholeheartedly agree. This is why armchair or theoretical magicians will never truly experience the unity and pure being of God, it is beyond thought, and can only be experienced, free of analytical labeling and rationalizing.
 
Last edited:

Robert Ramsay

Acolyte
Joined
Oct 1, 2023
Messages
403
Reaction score
888
Awards
4
I interpret the meaning of that thought as God is beyond our intellectual minds, which I wholeheartedly agree. This is why armchair or theoretical magicians will never truly experience the unity and pure being of God, it is beyond thought, and can only be experienced, free of analytical labeling and rationalizing.
This is of course also true of all major human experiences, including magic and sex.
 

pixel_fortune

Disciple
Joined
Sep 1, 2023
Messages
561
Reaction score
1,443
Awards
15
What would a woman say?
As a woman, my view is cosmopsychism - that consciousness is an inherent property of matter and all matter generates a field of consciousness, to varying degrees of complexity

so the universe has a mind, and I am a sub-mind within the universe, and I have sub-minds within me, at different levels of perspective and complexity.

As a woman, I would say that in terms of the psychological model, once you dig deep enough into a lot of these things, the distinctions start to become meaningless.
(Like I was saying in a post about the HGA a while back, I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between "a separate entity that is closely entangled with you throughout your whole life from birth till death" and "a part of your self")

There is an aphorism in linguist/editor etc circles - "words don't have meanings, they have uses"

so (as a woman) the question isn't really "is 'psychological model' the right label to apply to magic?", it's "what are people trying to communicate when they use the term 'psychological model'?"

and often they are trying to communicate something very different from what Anziel is communicating. Which makes it not very helpful to use the same term for it

(I have no idea what any of that could possibly have to do with being a woman, but Roma asked)
 

Roma

Apostle
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,428
Reaction score
2,785
Awards
12
(I have no idea what any of that could possibly have to do with being a woman, but Roma asked)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

It seems to me that control of the mind is the often first major step towards the Oneness of All

Men tend to be mental and view Reality through that filter.

Women however are often required to take a broader perspective (e.g. holding a family in proper relationship). Often they tend towards to a heart-centric life.

The heart seems the next step towards unity after the mind comes under control.

The following step traditionally is use of intent, the higher analog of will.

And the following step may be control of the spirit that has taken a human format
 

pixel_fortune

Disciple
Joined
Sep 1, 2023
Messages
561
Reaction score
1,443
Awards
15
Women however are often required to take a broader perspective (e.g. holding a family in proper relationship).
I see what you're saying - I wouldn't consider that a men/women divide [It certainly doesn't hold true for me, I don't have kids and am not family oriented]

But I can see there being a divide between people with a carer role and people without anyone dependent on them, and on average that does skew along gender lines

And it does make sense that someone with a broader, more interdependent role in a community would be practised at unifying disparate elements
 
Top