Where does it talk about Magick being "supernatural"?

All I see is Crowley making reference to a specific divinity/archetype. All in all, nothing more "supernatural" than the expension of the electromagnetic body that Tetra is talking about.

But yeah, I would be better to reformulate my comment as: The term Magick, or even Magic (without the "k" ), doesn't necessarily imply the presence of something supernatural.

Sorry, but most people would consider "an intelligence discarnate, who wrote this Book of the Law, using my ears and hand" supernatural. Clearly, "consciousness independent of nerve" is not an archetype, which operates within an individual. Nice try conflating that and divinity though.

"An archetype ( /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is a universally understood symbol or term[1] or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures."

In a pantheistic worldview, archetypes could very well be independant of the individual.

I'll agree though that most people might see this as supernatural. I guess it depends on your views of what Nature is.

I don't know...on another note, I've never really taken Crowley more literaly than I take alchemy literaly.

Ummmmmm . . . . . . So you agree that it is an act of intention. The point being: Why label something we can hold onto and utilize like intention "magick"? Where does my "lack of culture" fit into this???? Because I choose not to use a horribly outdated term like "magick"? You realize, I hope, that just by using that term you automatically turn off eighty percent of the people you try and expose these things to? Yes?

And where did I state my beliefs' superiority? Or anything related to "proof" (whatever that is)?

If we are going to get more people to start empowering themselves, we have to avoid segregating and childish-sounding terms like "magick".

Great topic! Focused Intent/Magick/Manifestation+ DMT sounds like a potent combination.



You're just arguing semantics. And the spelling of Magick might sounds childish or nerdy to some, but not others. It's all in how you perceive it. I think it's a great way to distinguish from the stage/illusion variety.



Exactly.

Horribly outdated? Have you checked google or a library lately?

You seem to have a wrong idea of what magick is. If the trailing K bothers you so much, understand that words have connotations and meanings, and while Magic could and for hundreds of years did capture the meaning of present-day magick, today magic is something else in most people's heads, hence the need for the distinction.

It's not because it's cool.

One more time, for clarity: I know why you people spell it with a "K", I've always known. Completely missing the point!

In these times of great acceleration, anything older than, say, ten-twenty years, is horribly outdated.

My point (and try to focus like a laser beam, please): Using terms like magic, no matter the spelling, AUTOMATICALLY turns away MOST people. By trying to update these things with more appropriate vernacular such as Intention, I am trying to integrate a greater number of seekers into these magical times. I want all souls coming home, not just the few who can see past the "K".

This doesn't really matter at all, as you're engaging non-critically in a hijacking of his term. You present an apologetic revision of his definition as the definition and then act all hot-to-trot that others are misinterpreting what you mean by it. It's incredibly problematic and makes it difficult to take any of your other claims seriously.


Really??? Even in a wholly materialist framework, archetypes appear independently of any individual, but each instantiation or expression of them comes through an individual. That independence is what makes them an archetype.

Could you please, then, give me your definition of magick? I was under the impression that it was pretty much what someone else said in this thread before me: Magick is



If you think it is wrong, can you tell me in what way?

As for the "Consciousness independant on nerves", don't you think it is also being expressed through the individual, when Crowley says: "There is a Being called Aiwaz, an intelligence discarnate, who wrote this Book of the Law, using my ears and hand." ?

Invocations and channeling are refering to entities independant on the individual's consciousness being expressed through him. Calling them divinities, spirits, demons, genies, angels or archetypes is a matter a ideology much more than anything else. Wich is why I, at first, didn't simply say "archetypes" but "divinities/archetypes".

I admit the "pantheistic worldview" point wasn't necessary, though.

Magick is part of the esoteric tradition. Those who practice it are not necessarily looking to turn more people into it.

In any ways, there is many different magical and mystical traditions. Some differ in their cosmology, others in their methods and goals. Trying to pass your understanding of magic or mysticism as THE path to take may not be the best attitude to take.

The definition, which the "art of changing consciousness..." is a bastardization of the definition, along with attendant theorems, found here.

I understand that you believe that it's a matter of ideology, but there are very real functional differences, when you go back and engage with the original texts. To Jung, archetypes were emergent constructions of history. They are built into the body, and so cannot reveal any new information, but only the out-of-conscious knowledge that has been conserved through the process of evolution. The popularization of the concept of archetypes and the collective unconscious has tended to water down his discussions into something very different, which, I must assume, is why you would confuse them as independent entities. Crowley's discussion at the beginning of his edition of the Goetia takes the archetypal perspective, which he later rejects, especially in regards to Aiwaz.

In particular with Aiwaz, he was able to provide completely new information that clarified concepts which were too recent as to have been embedded in the human body through evolution.

And no, I don't think that in the case of Aiwaz, he was being expressed through the individual. Crowley was exceptionally clear on the point that he was in a normal state of consciousness and audibly heard Aiwaz speaking to him, in contrast to channeled communications like he describes in The Vision and the Voice.

Wait a minute: aren't you doing the EXACT SAME THING????? And when, exactly, did I say anything remotely related to "my way" being the only way? You hear what you want to hear, as do all.

Listen, and listen well: we need to UPDATE the "esoteric traditions," and bring them out of the shadows. You may not care about everyone getting with the spiritual program, but we can only move on as species TOGETHER. I remember a man a long time ago saying something along the lines as you are only as great as the least of you.

"The hands of the many must join as one, and together we'll cross the river." --Puscifer

All right, thanks for the clarification. I guess I was confused about some points in my interpretation of Crowley's magick.

No I am not. I never said that your worldview is wrong, that medition doesn't work, or that Magick's way is better. I was simply stating why I think that such a term has it's place, while what you are saying is that "there is no magic or supernatural", that the use of the term "magick" is lame, and that meditation is better than magic.

My point is that the two have very different objectives and that one isn't necessarily better than the other.

ragabr - You are the grooviest girl this side of hyperspace.

I think any spiritual practice seems to be of interest in terms of the experience on DMT; though I've never taken DMT, from my research it is preferred to be entere into from a place of non-expectation. A sigil or other techniques may constitute for going in with a clear expectation and even intention. So it could probably go either good or bad, if like said, it is a selfish or ignorant expectation. But a sigil or some type of form or symbol to simply remind one to get ahold of one's bearings could probably help the observer to keep "together". This and basic breathing or grounding techniques would seem most useful imho.

And I don't get what all the semantics is pertaining to "magick with a k"... It is inter-changeable with thousands of words if one wants.. Humans trying to express their will into reality is nothing new, and everyone does it; shaman, magician, banker, doctor, bum.

I think this is a good point. One of the many matters within this subject that I'd love to discuss with the the denizens of this here fine nexus. Unfortunately this thread is getting derailed and run amok by what I see as some rather hostile attitudes.


Jam Fries, Philip H Farber and others have been progressing the field of consciousness research quite nicely in just the past year or so...within the "magickal" paradigm. It might be awhile before the term gets abandonned. IF it ever does. Perhaps in a few years your definition of the term will be the thing to change. This is an old tradition, with new innovations constantly happening, contantly branching off into new forms, contunuously being tested and revised by practioners the world over. It might not change over night, just because a few people who don't like it complain on message boards.


"The method of science, the aim of religion" was the motto of Crowleys magazine.

Occult Science is a term many people use in place of the term magick. I'm sure that term might enrage some people here just as much. Nevertheless, many poeple working within the various systems of magick do approach these matters with a rather scientific and skeptical attitude, revising theories, seeking repeatable results.

To become enraged and allow hostilities to stifle conversation and inquires into such matters does us no good at all.


Magick. Ceramonial magick in particuliar. The western esoteric tradition. Elaborate rituals...I thinbk these sorts of things arose partially out of a lack of good entheogens. Look at shamanic traditions around the world and a gfeneral trend one may find is that ritual becomes more elaborate when entheogens are scarce. Or less active.




I'll keep it short and possibly bring up more points another time.

Please, please, PLEASE do not put words in my mouth! At NO POINT did I say meditation was better than magic. I merely offered a practice as an anecdotal example of how you you can explain things without reverting to frilly terms that turn people off. Tell someone about "magick" and, right or wrong, a lot of peoples first reaction is "Oh, pa-leeze!" But dial things in a bit a bring up quantum superposition and you include more people. And you have something we can work with in a scientific AND spiritual way. The two must marry.

You picking up what I'm laying down? I'm done saying the same thing in a different way each post. If you don't get it by now, that's too bad. You can obsess over me calling "magick" lame, or you can address the real points that I've made (which you've not done).

The real points being what? That Magick isn't the best term to include people? I've already told you that the esoteric tradition isn't trying to be popular or inclusive.

Magic isn't trying to "explain" thing like you seem to thing. It isn't a cosmological system. It is a METHOD for working within such system. It is a tool working mainly with rituals and intention (but isn't simply intention itself). If you have any better term for such a method, then please share, but until then I think there is a need for such a word as magic or magick.

I am in no way opposed to your idea that we should be seeking a way to unite different worldviews. In fact I totally agree with you. But that doesn't mean that magic can't be used as a tool inside such a united worldview.

I think Wes Unruh and Edward Wilson put my feeling on the "brain change willed" crowd definition of magic:

Source

The entire book is extremely worth going through.