What Is the Constant Behind Different Magical Traditions?

[Aibinuori]

If different traditions use different names, symbols, languages, entities, and ritual structures, sometimes even contradictory explanations, yet practitioners report similar experiences or outcomes, what do you think is the constant underneath all of them?

Is it the entity, the practitioner’s consciousness, intention, symbolism, belief, some form of information exchange, or something else entirely?

And more importantly, how would we distinguish between those explanations rather than simply interpreting the same result through different traditions?

 

[iamthatiam]

Is it the entity, the practitioner’s consciousness, intention, symbolism, belief, some form of information exchange, or something else entirely?

All of the above.

Common thread I've noticed are emotion and energy concentrated on a desired result. I look at symbolism, ceremonies, chants, what have you as methods to work up that emotion and energy. Getting you 'in the mood' so to speak.

Problem > Extreme Emotion > Release it to the universe and forget > Repeat if necessary

The rest is just icing.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

IMO, an unforeseen consequence of normal human consciousness. The process requires a certain way of thinking, which in turn requires some kind of system to implement that way of thinking. This system can be anything, as long as it implements the certain way of thinking.

The certain way of thinking is related to how you behave when you ride a bike. When you've learned, you can ride the bike barely thinking about it. Instead of riding a bike, however, you are instead selecting for successful outcomes for your intent.

 

[Nembra]

I think that the magician's will interfaces with whatever structures make the rituals work through the unconcious mind, so there needs to be some symbolic structure to carry the meaning through the depths of the psyche. While what exactly can be accomplished does seem to depend on the shape of the chosen system to a significant degree, there is no objectively, universally true one simply because they're tools rather than explanations.

There are probably meaningful conversations to be had about quality and applicability of different hammer designs that would find some general rules of optimal hammer construction as well as prove some of the designs objectively shitty but they won't ever lead to finding some platonic "true hammer". Annoyingly, not many occultists seem to have internalised that idea and are advertising their constructed or inherited tools as found in nature, even to themselves.

 

[Lurker]

If different traditions use different names, symbols, languages, entities, and ritual structures, sometimes even contradictory explanations, yet practitioners report similar experiences or outcomes, what do you think is the constant underneath all of them?

The only underlying constant I've found is that what we call 'reality' is somehow permeable and malleable. The malleable part may come from being able to shape the Astral light, as some authors have put it.

Is it the entity, the practitioner’s consciousness, intention, symbolism, belief, some form of information exchange, or something else entirely?

All of the above. As you pointed out, different traditions (and practitioners) use different methods and report similar results. I don't think any of those models can be invalidated, but the usual caveat applies - models are just models, not the reality they claim to model.

And more importantly, how would we distinguish between those explanations rather than simply interpreting the same result through different traditions?

That's a good question. I'm not aware of a method for determining which type of 'fingerprints' are on the magic, other than divining. The question then become one of how much you trust your divination skills.

 

[Aibinuori]

I think the replies are pointing toward an interesting distinction: perhaps a magical system is an interface rather than an explanation of the underlying mechanism.

If that’s true, then changing the interface while holding the intention constant should tell us something.

For example, suppose the same clearly defined intention were attempted repeatedly using different symbolic systems, different languages, a stripped
down method with no traditional symbolism, and perhaps even a control condition.

If outcomes remained comparable, that would weaken the argument that any particular symbolic system is causally necessary. If outcomes changed systematically with the method, that would suggest the structure itself contributes something.

Would something along those lines be a reasonable way of beginning to distinguish the models?

 

[Nembra]

I think the replies are pointing toward an interesting distinction: perhaps a magical system is an interface rather than an explanation of the underlying mechanism.

If that’s true, then changing the interface while holding the intention constant should tell us something.

For example, suppose the same clearly defined intention were attempted repeatedly using different symbolic systems, different languages, a stripped
down method with no traditional symbolism, and perhaps even a control condition.

If outcomes remained comparable, that would weaken the argument that any particular symbolic system is causally necessary. If outcomes changed systematically with the method, that would suggest the structure itself contributes something.

Would something along those lines be a reasonable way of beginning to distinguish the models?

The problem is always with confounding variables - hence it's not a science yet. Psyche is quite densely chaotic and impossible to effectively control for. Outcomes vary wildly with no good way of telling which of the small, inevitable changes to blame for it.

 

[Lurker]

The malleable part may come from being able to shape the Astral light, as some authors have put it.

Oops, I can't believe I wrote that. It's really just one more model. I let my own bias get in the way there.