Theories of Magic/Magick

[frater_pan]

Generally modern occultism has proposed a model of five general theories of magic/magick:

• Psychological Model
• Energy Model
• Spirit/gods/God Model
• Information Model
• Meta Model

These can be found in numerous sources online and used to be widely discussed. Additionally these five models have historical support in reports from magicians, wizards, witches, etc.

 

[Morell]

Interesting.
I'm aware of first three, the last two I didn't hear about yet.

Though they are defined, I doubt that people tend to use only one of these models.

 

[frater_pan]

I edited the original posting to expand briefly and give a couple of examples but the edit didn't take.

The information model says that reality is pure information and can be manipulated directly. Superficially it sounds the same as the energy model.
The meta model says that all four models of magic are true (or valid or useful) as would be any other model that delivers results. The difference is that the magician then uses the models as they need to. This is particularly favored by chaos magicians.

 

[Asteriskos]

Interesting.
I'm aware of first three, the last two I didn't hear about yet.

Though they are defined, I doubt that people tend to use only one of these models.

A "chaote" would likely use which ever model provided the best fit for any particular operation, including mixed models too.

 

[frater_pan]

The psychological model says that the conscious mind projects reality and thus reality can be directly manipulated using psychological manipulation (think La Vey's psychodrama).
The energy model says that reality is pure energy and can be directly manipulated.
The spirit/gods/God model says that the spirits have objective existence and they directly effect magic.

Additionally, any other kind of magic can be subsumed into the first four. If one asserted that ritual alone accomplished magic by itself then this could be seen as falling under the psychological, energy or information models. If someone asserted that ritual is necessary but spirits actually did the magic then it would fall under the spirit model.

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2025

A "chaote" would likely use which ever model provided the best fit for any particular operation, including mixed models too.

That is exactly the meta model.

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2025

So apparently this presentation is from Frater UD, although I remember a lot of discussion in occult forums in the old days on this topic.

Here is a link to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on Sacred Text's dot com.

 

[HoldAll]

It all goes back to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

by Frater U.D./Ralph Tegtmeier (a better formatted pdf file can be found here). It's main innovation was to demolish the limited Energy Model that made armchair occultists assume that magical energy had to obey the laws of thermodynamics, could neither be destroyed nor generated, etc. The very apex of this literalist dumbassery for me was a discussion on an occult subreddit concerning the best materials for wands - one guy suggested hazel twigs whereupon some clever pants piped up and wrote, "I wouldn't recommend hazel because after all, wood is a poor conductor." Can you believe the sheer stupidity of this comment? Instead, Frater U.D. advocated the Information Model because it wouldn't be limited by people's association with conventional physics - information can be destroyed, can be produced and reproduced effortlessly, behaves in a totally different way than physical energy; pity it never caught on.

 

[silencewaits]

I believe models that rely on conventional physics are bunk. I would also say that solipsistic models are bunk; we are the ones dependent on that which is phenomenal and supra-phenomenal, not the other way around.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

I believe models that rely on conventional physics are bunk. I would also say that solipsistic models are bunk; we are the ones dependent on that which is phenomenal and supra-phenomenal, not the other way around.

I've worked for thirty plus years on a model based completely in modern physics that is not bunk - although it's more of an enabling cosmology. It's not a method of doing magic, it's an explanation of why magic works (and also why it doesn't always). I don't believe in the supernatural - only in the many natural things that we don't yet know how to explain. Calling something 'supernatural', IMO, just throws into sharp relief how little we understand that thing.
I won't go into the details of the physics here (I wrote an entire book for that) but probably the key insight is that in magic, exactly as in normal life, you do not change the world, you experience the version of the world where the change is present. Basically you need to turn your perception of the world inside out, which is not easy.

Magic is an edge condition of normal human consciousness; it uses the same mechanisms but in an unexpected way. When you learn to ride a bike, you have to think about it. When you've learned to ride a bike, you hardly have to think about it at all. Magic requires that your intent gets learned in a similar way.

 

[FireBorn]

I like the Meta model cause its funny (everything is valid so nothing is sacred I guess), but the truth is I hate all of them. Why limit or put yourself in someone elses box with someone elses lens?

I do wonder though if there is a way to determine which of the proposed 5 theories, or models has the most consistent results. By results I mean success. I am not slave to the sunk cost fallacy, so if I different theory or model had more consistent results, I would switch in a heartbeat. Let my ego burn if need be, I want the results, thats the only reason I do this to begin with.

Has anyone here actually tracked which model produces the most reliable outcomes? Not theory, not belief, just success rate. That’s the elephant I keep seeing in the room.

 

[silencewaits]

I've worked for thirty plus years on a model based completely in modern physics that is not bunk - although it's more of an enabling cosmology. It's not a method of doing magic, it's an explanation of why magic works (and also why it doesn't always). I don't believe in the supernatural - only in the many natural things that we don't yet know how to explain. Calling something 'supernatural', IMO, just throws into sharp relief how little we understand that thing.
I won't go into the details of the physics here (I wrote an entire book for that) but probably the key insight is that in magic, exactly as in normal life, you do not change the world, you experience the version of the world where the change is present. Basically you need to turn your perception of the world inside out, which is not easy.

Magic is an edge condition of normal human consciousness; it uses the same mechanisms but in an unexpected way. When you learn to ride a bike, you have to think about it. When you've learned to ride a bike, you hardly have to think about it at all. Magic requires that your intent gets learned in a similar way.

I should have been more concise instead of throwing around words like conventional physics--classical mechanics would have been a better descriptor. I looked more into your model and I do say it helps conceptualize magical change for me; even if I do feel that your model is incomplete. That's because the sort of magical arts relevant to my pursuits require a different explanatory cosmology. It is however quite useful for what a lot of magicians concern themselves with.

 

[Asteriskos]

I like the Meta model cause its funny (everything is valid so nothing is sacred I guess), but the truth is I hate all of them. Why limit or put yourself in someone elses box with someone elses lens?

I do wonder though if there is a way to determine which of the proposed 5 theories, or models has the most consistent results. By results I mean success. I am not slave to the sunk cost fallacy, so if I different theory or model had more consistent results, I would switch in a heartbeat. Let my ego burn if need be, I want the results, thats the only reason I do this to begin with.

Has anyone here actually tracked which model produces the most reliable outcomes? Not theory, not belief, just success rate. That’s the elephant I keep seeing in the room.

Yeah, me too. No one model can obviously cover every possible operation. Spirit model for evocation/invocation for example, so I think it would be difficult to say which is most successful overall. A mismatch of model to operation would likely yield poor to no results. And mixed/meta models require a lot more thought and prep?

 

[frater_pan]

Yeah, me too. No one model can obviously cover every possible operation. Spirit model for evocation/invocation for example, so I think it would be difficult to say which is most successful overall. A mismatch of model to operation would likely yield poor to no results. And mixed/meta models require a lot more thought and prep?

There is an essay in Carroll's "This is Chaos" that argues for animism and the spirit model as the go to model for most magic.

 

[Asteriskos]

Excellent point! You know I just got a copy of that recently. I'd have to agree with that as well, it would cover more "statements of intent" than just about any of the others! I'm just getting into the book now, it's the only thing by Carroll that I haven't read to date! Thanks for bringing that up!

Post automatically merged: Sep 15, 2025

I realize also there are lots of contributors essays in "This is Chaos" can't wait to dig in to it!

 

[Robert Ramsay]

I should have been more concise instead of throwing around words like conventional physics--classical mechanics would have been a better descriptor. I looked more into your model and I do say it helps conceptualize magical change for me; even if I do feel that your model is incomplete. That's because the sort of magical arts relevant to my pursuits require a different explanatory cosmology. It is however quite useful for what a lot of magicians concern themselves with.

Yeah, classical mechanics on its own is no good at all for anything even vaguely interesting, occult-wise

One thing that strikes me is that one needs to distinguish the model from the belief system used to implement it. You can have a model of how magic works, but use a completely different system to actually do the magic - because that system is the best for you and your results - a bit like saying "I know that the Earth spins very fast on its axis, but it's more useful to me to treat it as if the Earth were motionless and everything else moves"