Talk:Magick (Thelema)

Archives
March 2003 – May 2006

New article in place, ready for editing

Based on a request, the new magick article in now in place. It is certainly incomplete, but I believe it offers a a good template for additions. Although the page history is in place, I have archived the last version here.

I realize that this is a big move. However, I honestly believe that the prior article was poorly constructed and rather hodge podge. If I did not include anything that editors feel strongly about, I of course welcome reintegration. I have no authority here...I'm just being bold. :)

I hope that editors will jump in with both feet in filling out all the empty sections. Let's really make this article shine!! –Frater5 (talk/con) 01:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentece of this article makes no sense whatsoever

"Magick, in the broadest sense, is any act designed to cause intentional change." So tying my shoelaces is magick, now? It is an act, designed to cause intentional change.

I'm not really an expert on this subject, but perhaps "is any supernatural act designed to cause intentional change" would be a more precise definition? I dunno, but the current version is definitely not correct. --Ashenai 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to Crowley, any Willed act whatsoever is Magick. He says it quite literally in Book 4: "Every intentional act is a Magical act." He even gives an example for this: "Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magical weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magical language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will." Couldn't be more plain, I think. –Frater5 (talk/con) 15:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, however, the statement needs qualification, or sourcing. It's not NPOV to state that "every intentional act is a Magickal act", because that's not a generally accepted definition in the non-Magickal community. How about something like "According to Crowley, in the broadest sense, is any act designed to cause intentional change," or something along those lines? --Ashenai 15:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind sourcing it, but the header makes it plain that the entire article is all "according to Crowley". However, I see your point, and perhaps the first sentence could make Crowley's involvement more articulate. –Frater5 (talk/con) 15:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fleshing out the article

In case the new article isn't clear, the following three sections are intended to be fleshed out, not just linked:

• Other magical practices
• Components of ritual magick
• Schools of magick

Please consider writing out at least one or two paragraphs for each. Also, an editor took out the empty header for Sex Magick, which also deserves a nice treatment. Thanks! 15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's already an article on sex magic, so it should just be a brief intro and a reference to the main article. This may be true of other sections as well. -999 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for needed topics within the current article...

===Other magical practices===

• Initiation
• Magical record
• magical oath
• Talismans and sigils
• Curses
• Magical Link
• Magical memory

==Components of ritual magick==

• Elements and cardinal directions
• Magical Weapons
• Temple Components
• Ritual signs and gestures
• Vibration
• Magical formulae

==Schools of magick==

• Alchemy
• Enochian magick
• Goetic magick
• Chaos magick

–Frater5 (talk/con) 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Crowley wrote about those in general? Anything can be added, as long as he actually discussed these topics. Zos 01:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See also section

Meanwhile, please stop removing the See also section. I think a good see also section is an improvement to the article. Stop undoing my work, you don't own the article. -999 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask that we restrain that section? Just to begin with, it shouldn't contain links to articles that don't exist. Jkelly 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -999 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that, while all of this effort is going into this article, it may make sense to look at the associated Categories. They should be a much more efficient way of finding articles on related subjects than a long "See also" list, but they could use some attention. Jkelly 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

High vs. Low Magick

A discussion of the meaning of High and Low magick should be included, as High Magick redirects here... -999 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The merge

It appears that my edits were not brought over. All of my edits were double cited. And there is only on cited statement in the area in which I edited.

Definition == Crowley defined magick as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." He goes on to elaborate on this, in one postulate, and twenty eight theoroms.

Postulate and Theoroms == His first clarification on the matter is that of a postulate, in which he states "ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object."

I'd like this back in, since it was an actual improvement. Zos 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Improve as thou wilt. -999 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Danke. I will when I finish moving to another state :p Zos 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Read

Since when is Magick owned completely by thelema? The spelling of the word was not created by Crowley, and the Magick I use and teach is neither thelemic, nor is it paranormal, nor is it witchcraft. The information in this article makes it seem as if the term Magick is entirely controlled by Thelema and Crowley. Worse yet, the leading paragraph makes it clear that any non-thelemic "Magick" is relegated to witchcraft, folk magick, and "supernatural" as if all other practicioners of magick are somehow uncivilised or uneducated.

After all, what about Shamans, Druids, and hundreds of other religions, traditions, and paths that use "Magick" that is not paranormal (I.e. it is seen as a part of nature and is therefore "normal") and is not thelemic specifically, yet still uses the archaic spelling for the same reasons crowley did, but not nessecarily because of him?

This is incredibly offensive to me, though I have nothing specifically against Thelema or Crowley, I often refer to this article as it was written for my own students to read where they could find a good, detailed description and definition of Magick, but now it seems they will instead find a good detailed description of Thelema.

Please fix this. Put the thelema information on the thelema page, the crowley information on the Crowley page, and return the old Magick article as it was, because this is certainly not the correct page for a description of Thelema or detailing the works of a single individual (i.e. Crowley).

Thank you. -Arkayne Magii, Myrddin of the Elodrym

You may be looking for Magic (paranormal). If you have a reliable source showing the someone used the "magick" spelling to mean something specific before Crowley did, I'm sure the editors here would be very interested in incorporating that into the article. Jkelly 05:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

First of all, the original paragraph in this article states:

"Magick, in the broadest sense, is any act designed to cause intentional change. [1] The archaic spelling with the terminal "k" was repopularized in the first half of the 20th century by Aleister Crowley when he made it a core component of his mystical system of Thelema."

Second, it comes from the Greek "Magikos" which evolved into the Anglicised version "Magike". "Magikos" which derived from "Magos", was itself derived from Old Persion "Magush".

English spelling was not a fixed system for quite some time, and throughout history, spelling changed based on who was writing and how each writer percieved the pronunciation of the word. often word spelling changed many times within the same manuscripts.

for the Etymology of the word Magic, see: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=MAGIC&searchmode=none

The Online Etymological Dictionary, which shows the original Greek spelling.

also, the American Heritage Dictionary page on Magick (http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/M0026050.html) defines Magick as:

An action or effort undertaken because of a personal need to effect change, especially as associated with Wicca or Wiccan beliefs.

and mentions neither Thelema nor Crowley, but DOES mention Wicca.

So again, I request that this be reworked into: Magick, Thelemic and that the original Magick page be put back up for the definition of Magick in general. It feels to me that this is simply a way of claiming dominance of the word "Magick" and attempting to associate it specifically and completely with Thelema and Thelemic tradition, and even in the very first sentance of the article, as I have already mentioned, it says that crowley only popularized an older archaic spelling, a spelling that I might point out was used prior to Crowley by Dee himself in his writings on Enochian Magick from which Crowley borrowed a great deal.

Also, the disclaimer about the topic at the very beginning of the article which reads: "This article refers to the magical system of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. For how this term appears in Wicca and similar Neopagan traditions, see Witchcraft and Folk magic. For a general survey of the topic, see Magic (paranormal). "

As you can see, it states that the srticle refers specifically to Thelema and Crowley, which is the foundation of my point that this should instead be listed under Magick, Thelemic or Magick, Crowley under the broader topic of Magick in general.

Please don't misunderstand me on this, I very much appreciate the information, and I am not arguing the accuracy of the article itself, but I simply believe that putting the Thelemic tradition as the general definition of Magick is wrong and misleading.

And no, I wasn't looking for Magic (paranormal) as you can see in reading my previous post.

- Arkayne Magii, Myrddin of the Elodrym

---

It seems the poster was misunderstood. There are many mages and practictioners who do not view magic as paranormal. It is, a way of life. A major part of daily spiritual practice. Magic with a "k" has come to denote a difference between stage magic and the spiritual belief. The etymology of "magic" includes the Greek word magike and magikos. EtymologyThe Greek origins of the word as well as the new use by Crowley should be included. Crowley popularized the magiCK version. This spelling isn't copyrighted by any one group so I disagree with the article leaning heavily toward the Thelema tradition. "Magick" was used at least as late as 1659 by Friar Roger Bacon Online Publication of the Translated TextThe magick article would be more accurate if the original magick article were restored, perhaps with some of the recently added information. Most of the Thelema information should be in another article with a link under See Also: Thelema Magick

Please note the vandalism in the article

There has been a malicious change in this article, easily found in the first paragraph, please change back to the last good version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.31.75 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 July 2006 UTC (UTC)

Is this article a hoax?

They actually link to Yoga, really? And other real articles about religion! Wow! This has got to be a scam! Flinders 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? What about the article is unclear to you, or seems wrong? Jkelly 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a hoax. Aleister Crowley was an early student of Yoga, Buddhism, Taoism and other discplines and his integration of these into his Magick are legit, though dated. -999 (Talk) 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You've got to be joking! SynergeticMaggot 23:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! It is a joke. Flinders 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)