Defining Magick II
I remember when I first started practicing Wicca, long time back, my friends and I had a long discussion on whether magick broke the laws of nature or simply operated on laws not yet understood. I can think of no finer way to point out that we lacked a definition of what we were supposedly practicing. Worse yet, no matter the results of our rituals we could not attribute any failure or unexpected consequences to a failure of understanding but rather to a failure of method. The central dogma was what is called in psychology "magical thinking", the belief that the universe behaves in a way that is sensitive to our beliefs.
Studying magick meant memorizing associations. Practicing magick meant ritual. The more I studied, the less I understood. When rituals failed to work, I would always blame it upon some error on my part. Whatever opinion you may generate of me as a magickian, consider this: No result of ritual can possibly undermine the supposed theory. The more I practiced, the more I came to believe that no one actually possessed a sound framework for building legitimate knowledge. I over-generalize, of course, but I do believe serious practicioners are the exception rather than the rule. Certainly we find more seriousness among today's occult community than in religious traditions.
But enough of this. So far you may wonder why I would consider myself a magickian of any sort.
I believe the best way to define a magickian is by two factors:
1) The type of questions he/she puts to the world.
2) The seriousness with which the questions are approached.
For the first, the questions seek:
* Why is there consciouness? This is the "Hard Problem" that modern neuroscience is attempting to face.
* Why do we feel we cause our actions? (or what is the Will?) Is this an illusion? There are non-deterministic phenomena in the universe, but do we cause those changes?
* Why does reality seem to follow a set of objective rules? Are these rules immutable?
For the second, by seriousness I mean the opposite of the mystical reverence. The magickian is not afraid to question every aspect of existence and should be prudent but not afraid of knowledge. The goal of magick is knowledge. Knowledge of self and the universe which are the same... but more on that later.
Studying magick meant memorizing associations. Practicing magick meant ritual. The more I studied, the less I understood. When rituals failed to work, I would always blame it upon some error on my part. Whatever opinion you may generate of me as a magickian, consider this: No result of ritual can possibly undermine the supposed theory. The more I practiced, the more I came to believe that no one actually possessed a sound framework for building legitimate knowledge. I over-generalize, of course, but I do believe serious practicioners are the exception rather than the rule. Certainly we find more seriousness among today's occult community than in religious traditions.
But enough of this. So far you may wonder why I would consider myself a magickian of any sort.
I believe the best way to define a magickian is by two factors:
1) The type of questions he/she puts to the world.
2) The seriousness with which the questions are approached.
For the first, the questions seek:
* Why is there consciouness? This is the "Hard Problem" that modern neuroscience is attempting to face.
* Why do we feel we cause our actions? (or what is the Will?) Is this an illusion? There are non-deterministic phenomena in the universe, but do we cause those changes?
* Why does reality seem to follow a set of objective rules? Are these rules immutable?
For the second, by seriousness I mean the opposite of the mystical reverence. The magickian is not afraid to question every aspect of existence and should be prudent but not afraid of knowledge. The goal of magick is knowledge. Knowledge of self and the universe which are the same... but more on that later.