- Posts: 5242
What do you get out of magic/k?
-
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
23 Aug 2014 07:04 - 23 Aug 2014 07:33 #157143
by
I ended up writing more than I thought I might on this topic, so to avoid cluttering up the thread I've included it under a spoiler.
Replied by on topic What do you get out of magic/k?
Edan wrote: For those of you here who are still doing some form of magic, I guess my question is, why? What do you all feel that you get out of it?
I ended up writing more than I thought I might on this topic, so to avoid cluttering up the thread I've included it under a spoiler.
Warning: Spoiler!
Last edit: 23 Aug 2014 07:33 by .
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Alexandre Orion
-
- Offline
- Master
-
- Council Member
-
- Senior Ordained Clergy Person
-
- om mani padme hum
23 Aug 2014 10:21 - 23 Aug 2014 10:24 #157149
by Alexandre Orion
Be a philosopher ; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.
~ David Hume
Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
Replied by Alexandre Orion on topic What do you get out of magic/k?
I think it was Isaac Bonewits who schematised the relationships of science, art, religion and magic. These can be illustrated (sens large, bien entendu !) as :
Now, what that means to me is that for everything that we do, there is some action on the "meta-" level that exceeds the immediate scope of whatever it is we are wanting to be doing. This is true from everything from the most elaborate magickal rite to simply doing the laundry. Thus intention is important (albeit it is strange to imagine someone doing laundry maliciously
). We already admit pretty readily that nothing is really separate from anything else. There is a sort of unity which reigns, that was there before everything and that everything arises from and returns to, an everything that is ubiquitous, mysterious and that we can't get our heads around very well. We can however be aware of it. And it is this awareness that can be a formidable strength to all of these various aspects of mind.
Moreover, one doesn't necessarily need choose ; they are all going on at once, even if we think that we have rationally rejected one or another. People like to regard themselves as rational, reasonable folk and thus would boast of subscribing to the science mind more than any of the others - for practitioners of magick, that is the identification, for an artist, art and for a traditional cleric, religion. Then they get all sorts of steamed when one implies that their methods are impractical ... go figure ! :S
Anyway, let's get back to what we were saying about the "meta-" aspects of everything. Awareness of what influences our intent and action ensuing thereof may have beyond the practice by whatever means it entails is to bring an equal awareness to that unity - that vast and magnificent and terrifying everything - that we already eagerly accept. Therefore, in keeping with the notion that for any and every task there is a cascade of causal possibilities, it is that awareness of the variables outside of what we can immediately take into account (and there are many !) that makes marvellous things out of will.
To de-mystify Bonewits' schematic, I see 'practical means' as the variables we can take into account and the immediate manipulation (again, in its positive sense) of the environment, and 'practical ends' as that about which we can be reasonably certain will result if our assessment of the practical means was accurate. 'Impractical means' would therefore be those which do not have a direct causal link to the result, but are those actions which access or bring about the circumstances whereby the desired result can most favourably arise. 'Impractical ends' I understand as representations of things, events or conditions, insubstantial, yet may occasion both practical and impractical means thereafter.
But then, I'm just a priest, and not much of a magician, so what the hell would I know ? I don't even really like to do the laundry either ...
... so, really, all I expect to get magically : clean laundry.
- science - practical means to practical ends
- art - practical means to impractical ends
- religion - impractical means to impractical ends
- magick - impractical means to practical ends
Now, what that means to me is that for everything that we do, there is some action on the "meta-" level that exceeds the immediate scope of whatever it is we are wanting to be doing. This is true from everything from the most elaborate magickal rite to simply doing the laundry. Thus intention is important (albeit it is strange to imagine someone doing laundry maliciously
). We already admit pretty readily that nothing is really separate from anything else. There is a sort of unity which reigns, that was there before everything and that everything arises from and returns to, an everything that is ubiquitous, mysterious and that we can't get our heads around very well. We can however be aware of it. And it is this awareness that can be a formidable strength to all of these various aspects of mind.Moreover, one doesn't necessarily need choose ; they are all going on at once, even if we think that we have rationally rejected one or another. People like to regard themselves as rational, reasonable folk and thus would boast of subscribing to the science mind more than any of the others - for practitioners of magick, that is the identification, for an artist, art and for a traditional cleric, religion. Then they get all sorts of steamed when one implies that their methods are impractical ... go figure ! :S
Anyway, let's get back to what we were saying about the "meta-" aspects of everything. Awareness of what influences our intent and action ensuing thereof may have beyond the practice by whatever means it entails is to bring an equal awareness to that unity - that vast and magnificent and terrifying everything - that we already eagerly accept. Therefore, in keeping with the notion that for any and every task there is a cascade of causal possibilities, it is that awareness of the variables outside of what we can immediately take into account (and there are many !) that makes marvellous things out of will.
To de-mystify Bonewits' schematic, I see 'practical means' as the variables we can take into account and the immediate manipulation (again, in its positive sense) of the environment, and 'practical ends' as that about which we can be reasonably certain will result if our assessment of the practical means was accurate. 'Impractical means' would therefore be those which do not have a direct causal link to the result, but are those actions which access or bring about the circumstances whereby the desired result can most favourably arise. 'Impractical ends' I understand as representations of things, events or conditions, insubstantial, yet may occasion both practical and impractical means thereafter.
But then, I'm just a priest, and not much of a magician, so what the hell would I know ? I don't even really like to do the laundry either ...
... so, really, all I expect to get magically : clean laundry.
Be a philosopher ; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.
~ David Hume
Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
Last edit: 23 Aug 2014 10:24 by Alexandre Orion.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
