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!
I like that! A major turn-off to me is when magick is treated like praying, just with extra steps. Magick (to me) is something proactive, a formulation of will, not just pleading for mercy in front of any deity.
I like that! A major turn-off to me is when magick is treated like praying, just with extra steps. Magick (to me) is something proactive, a formulation of will, not just pleading for mercy in front of any deity.
From a New Thought perspective it's just bad magic and only reifies your lack. You're mythologizing and elevating to an outsized or personal Archetypal level in you own mythic narrative the state of NOT having your desire. Maybe even giving something you hate an oversized importance over your life if you are attached to feeling that thing literally hates you in some masochistic inter-personal drama. If can't get to the feeling it is done, you will be stuck there forever as the world moves on .
I'm actually fine with people who mix religion and magic , and take a more sacramental approach, be it neopagans, Catholics, Muslims, or Buddhists, or some of my fave people the Christo-Luciferians. This kind of apprach works well for us creatives types, and for who are more right-brained, and like art, cinematography, narratives, story, drama and theater to drive emotions.
On using mythic narratived see: Historiola: The Power of Narrative Charms, from Hadean Press.
"Praying" and "invocation" are words I tend to use as synonyms and are pretty much interchangeable. When "praying" my intent is to use the emotion + narrative myth to rewite my nephesh / subconsious / animal self and align with a mythic nrrative. Praying is as a slow-drip method to wear away dynfunctional accretions in you "soul" or "subconsious" , words we use as if we know what are really either one.
In Catholic mystical practice is process is called theosis , and is not magic per se , but can be seen as personal preperation for magic. The "Lower" elemental grades of the Golden Dawn work the same way, imho. As well as the Crowley to atheistic Satanic apprach to "fix blocks" in your "subconsious" by "overcoming social limitations." Same thing, differing only in cultural assumptions and narrative contexts. Poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.
Post automatically merged:
sigh . No time to spellcheck. Make that "...as personal preparation for magic."
@MorganBlack You brought up many interesting points. Thank you for that!
I'm a practitioner of Archetype magick, at the moment working with the Dark Mother archtype. So I understand your points of critique, but I think it's depending on the personal perspective, still under the retention that we are referring to the "Occult" (what literally means nobody knows WTF is actually going on).
What is a "god"? In my perspective there are two definitions (in a polytheistic sense), and that grounds my reluctance to "begging".
First: a symbolization or embodiment of cosmic forces or principles. We are under their influences, no use for negotiations! They don't care. Imagine a little plankton discussing direction with the Gulf stream. Good luck! That does not necessarily mean we cannot interact. Here I would refer to "Invocation".
Secondly: As a manifestation or incarnation of individual will or desire, a powerful tool to wield for personal purpose. Maybe not to alter the world, but to alter our perception of the world. It's a bargain for both of us, for we live through the gods, and the gods live through us. I like a concept brought back to life by Christopher Plaisance's book "Evocating the Gods". According to him there was a concept in Ancient Graeco-Egyptian magick to "use" the gods for personal goals. So I started in my personal work to refer to the term "Evocation".
Magick just is. It is humans trying to do somersaults to define it. Magick never changed, we did.
How we get there is wide and varied. So long as we get there. If you get there with a specific system, good for you. Just get there.
Personally, I dont bother defining it. I just experience it. Way smarter men have tried for thousands of years and failed to define it. It is my opinion that if you can define magick, you left the current and turned it into a math problem. You missed it entirely.
@MorganBlack You brought up many interesting points. Thank you for that!
I'm a practitioner of Archetype magick, at the moment working with the Dark Mother archtype. So I understand your points of critique, but I think it's depending on the personal perspective, still under the retention that we are referring to the "Occult" (what literally means nobody knows WTF is actually going on).
What is a "god"? In my perspective there are two definitions (in a polytheistic sense), and that grounds my reluctance to "begging".
First: a symbolization or embodiment of cosmic forces or principles. We are under their influences, no use for negotiations! They don't care. Imagine a little plankton discussing direction with the Gulf stream. Good luck! That does not necessarily mean we cannot interact. Here I would refer to "Invocation".
Secondly: As a manifestation or incarnation of individual will or desire, a powerful tool to wield for personal purpose. Maybe not to alter the world, but to alter our perception of the world. It's a bargain for both of us, for we live through the gods, and the gods live through us. I like a concept brought back to life by Christopher Plaisance's book "Evocating the Gods". According to him there was a concept in Ancient Graeco-Egyptian magick to "use" the gods for personal goals. So I started in my personal work to refer to the term "Evocation".
Post automatically merged:
At the risk of sounding stupid, can you elaborate your point further?
Magic lies outside of the confines of 'causality'. Whether it is a fundamental law or life is a self-referential experience, 'magic' is a practice we engage with to influence this experience. That may be a vague answer but I feel that the category of 'magic' does not lend itself to specification. If science is the method through which we understand and measure causal, predicable, phenomenon; Magic is how we investigate the unpredictable.
I agree with you and personally, I share a similar (rather modern) idea of magic. At the same time, there is still a very traditional idea of magic as a very causal thing, with strict rule sets, practiced to bring certain results.
Man, it gets so much harder to come of ecumenical definitions of magic once we leave the inclusiveness and precision of Chaos magic. I like people seeking their own definition. We have to change the bigger shared Story we are in, imho, and that is part of it.
So I am also totally fine with Folk Catholics who might define magic as, "God's power moving through the world."
