Talk:Magick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Magic redirect

Based on discussions in re the Magic (paranormal) and Magic (religion) articles, I have removed the redirect to Magic (paranormal). This article still needs some sort of parenthetical disambiguation as well as additional content. -- NetEsq 18:48 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ceremonial Magick

"Modern practitioners of magick often rely on one or more systems of magick to produce their effects. These include Ceremonial Magick Thelema, Chaos magick..."

Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item? ··gracefool |☺ 02:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't strip magick of its paranormal connotations and then speak of "effects" in any non-trivial manner. Why not just link the article to volition, deliberation, awareness, consciousness, decision-making, eye-blinking, sapience, and such. --Camus 07:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


RE: "Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item?"

They're related. Thelema started as a philosophy, then mixed with the Ceremonial Magick of the Golden Dawn, becoming a more robust tradition of its own. It was virtually unheard of until then, and therefore, Aleister Crowley is reguarded as it's creator.

There needs to be examples of what is considered magick. I couldn't tell when reading this if the magick being performed actually changed the outside world or was all in the users head.


Is this page NPOV enough? It seems rather heavily biased towards the "hey look, paranormal things exist" view of the world. Perhaps a link to "skeptic" at least would be appropriate? --203.167.184.76 05:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing?

One of the problems with magick is that its practitioners are not willing to demonstrate that they can do anything that the average man or woman cannot do. Requests for demonstrations of practical utility invariably meet tired excuses, leaving the critically minded wondering whether the occult tomes are anything more than collections of useless trivia and imagination exercises. So-called high magicians shirk the paranormal connotations of the word magick, yet the fact remains that the works of major occultists -- and the works of modern-day Llewellynites -- are riddled with paranormal claims. Everything from Hermetic theory to Qabalistic theory to Eastern mysticism includes the idea that the physical realm is inextricably linked with the "inner planes," so the occult manipulation of the physical realm should be a demonstrable phenomenon (Levi's theories about the Astral Light come to mind). Imagination exercises such as the staple LBRP are all well and good; however, if those exercises cause nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy feelings and self-hypnotic effects, what we have is not a grand form of magick but a puffed-up form of self-therapy. Quibble how much you like over the spelling of the word magick -- the semantic acrobatics and the ridiculous equivocation fool only the extremely gullible. I find myself in agreement with Frater Superior (of the O.T.O.), who wrote the following in the foreword to DuQuette's Magick of Aleister Crowley: "Occultism frequently gives ample grounds for criticism to its detractors by making insupportable claims for vaguely defined powers, the whole compassed by nonsensical theory." [Contributions from other seekers are welcome.] --Camus 06:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The veracity or otherwise of claims regarding magick is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Discussions like this should be pursued on usenet or some similar forum. Fuzzypeg 10:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Although my comments would be inappropriate for the main article itself, I included them here to provoke discussion in the interests of neutrality. I believe you know this, but you've decided to policy-thump arbitrarily, probably because what I said is incongruous with your own beliefs. The veracity or otherwise of claims regarding magick may be irrelevant for the purposes of the main article, but the fact that a significant number of people challenge those claims IS relevant for the purposes of the main article. Camus 05:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
'xactly, doesn't matter at all. You don't have to believe in White Supremacy to explain it to others, and attempting to PROVE it is beyond the point and scope of any article here anyway. --TheOtherStephan 06:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No one is trying to prove or disprove anything -- or even request compelling evidence for or against anything. Experience has shown that such attempts are futile. I myself study magick, but I am fully aware that there are many claims for which there is a distinct dearth of solid evidence. Crowley was a strong proponent of both philosophical and general skepticism (see his Soldier and the Hunchback, for instance). When I mention skepticism, I'm not talking about obstinate debunkers of the Randi variety, who are really nothing more than True Disbelievers. I hope this comment clears up any misunderstandings. Camus 05:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
No offense was intended, and please don't assume poor motives on my part. It's a clear and obvious fact that many people do not believe in magic(k). I don't see that that in itself needs much discussion. To actually debate the reality or otherwise of magic(k) is not necessarily futile, but it requires a great deal of time and a great deal of charitable listening from all parties. The pro-magic(k) camp can either discuss complicated theories at great length, or (and I find this really distasteful) cite examples of "miraculous" things they've seen and done. Either way, it will achieve nothing in the face of committed skepticism, but it will make for an extremely large discussion page. Basically, most serious occultists will not go out of their way to convince anyone of the truth of their beliefs, however if you're genuinely interested there are newsgroups where you can enter discussions on the subject. Prepare to devote a lot of time to it. Fuzzypeg 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal effects (article section)

I added this section so as not to insult those critical thinkers who aren't fooled by all the wordplay, linguistic legerdemain, equivocation, and blatant dishonesty concerning the term magick. What follows is my original version. (Camus 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Crowley made many claims for the paranormal effects of magick; however, as magicians and mystics had done before him and continue to do after him, Crowley dismissed such effects as useless:

So we find that from November, 19O1, he did no practices of any kind until the Spring Equinox of 1904, with the exception of a casual week in the summer of 1903, and an exhibition game of magick in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid in November, 1903, when by his invocations he filled that chamber with a brightness as of full moonlight. (This was no subjective illusion. The light was sufficient for him to read the ritual by.) Only to conclude, "There, you see it? What's the good of it?" --(Crowley, The Equinox of the Gods)

Even so, Crowley realized that paranormal effects and magical powers have some level of value for the individual:

My own experience was very convincing on this point; for one power after another came popping up when it was least wanted, and I saw at once that they represented so many leaks in my boat. They argued imperfect insulation. And really they are quite a bit of a nuisance. Their possession is so flattering, and their seduction so subtle. One understands at once why all the first-class Teachers insist so sternly that the Siddhi (or Iddhi) must be rejected firmly by the Aspirant, if he is not to be sidetracked and ultimately lost. Nevertheless, "even the evil germs of Matter may alike become useful and good" as Zoroaster reminds us. For one thing, their possession is indubitably a sheet-anchor, at the mercy of the hurricane of Doubt— doubt as to whether the whole business is not Tommy-rot! Such moments are frequent, even when one has advanced to a stage when Doubt would seem impossible; until you get there, you can have no idea how bad it is! Then, again, when these powers have sprung naturally and spontaneously from the exercise of one's proper faculties in the Great Work, they ought to be a little more than leaks. You ought to be able to organize and control them in such wise that they are of actual assistance to you in taking the Next Step. After all, what moral or magical difference is there between the power of digesting one's food, and that of transforming oneself into a hawk?" --(Crowley, Magick Without Tears)

Going further, others argue that a conclusive demonstration of these effects and powers would result in remarkable paradigm shifts and revolutions in human awareness -- the ostensible goals of magick on a collective scale.

Scrying

I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

After reading the article and its discussion, I've decided to add the NPOV flag. I think that whoever wrote most of this article was definitely biased "pro-spiritual," and it shows in his writing. Though I don't necessarily disagree, this isn't the place for apologetics.

It's not that long an article (and the [also brief] discussion here is not really relevant to the article itself), but could you be more specific about what you consider non-NPOV and apologetic in this article? I didn't write it, but I did recently clean it up and I am responsible for the entire third paragraph. But some explanation of your action would be appreciated to get the discussion going. Might I also suggest signing your posts and adding some information to your user page? Thanks. --Craig 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I see the objection being made. The article gives too much opinion over what alister crowley thought "magick" was. In many cases, crowley did have some fantastic claims about what would happen durring a ceremony (divine voices, flames, etc. etc. etc) while this article would make it seem like crowleys definition of magick was entirely yogic styled. While some of thelemic magickical practices does incorporate this rather yogic like magickical/spiritual practices. Crowley also was influenced and wrote ceremonies similar to that of mathers. Which involved an awful lot of fantastic things (like meeting your holy guardian angel, invisiblity, immortality, and etc) Jaynus

Thanks for replying. I see what you're saying, and looking at the article now I see two things: 1) My "rewrite" wasn't that extensive, other than adding the third paragraph; and 2) Much of the article, aside from my paragraph, is one long quote of Crowley. (By the way, I'm not holding up my paragraph as being better, just different.) Point 2 may or may not be a bad thing, but I do have to admit at this point that my knowledge of Crowley is not extensive enough for me to change the article substantially to reflect a broader view of magick. At the same time I feel that an anonymous "hit and run" editor slapping on an NPOV tag and then heading for the hills doesn't help the situation; either he/she should stick around and discuss the issue, or change the article. I'll leave this for a few days and if nobody (including the person who put the NPOV tag on the article) makes any concrete suggestions or rewrites the article, I'll post something on the Wicca talk page and see if anyone there wants to wade in, as there seems to be more activity over there. --Craig 08:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

1) You know that more than one Indian authority makes paranormal claims about yoga, right? 2) In the quoted lecture (external link) Crowley seems to refer to these ceremonies as a form of yoga. Read the quote in context. I do think it makes sense to say more about what you might call the specifically magical aspects, but let's stress those claimed parallels. (Since I don't know of any modern use of the word 'magick' except those deriving from Crowley, and he demanded the comparison.) Dan 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

1) Yes. 2) Don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but it seems worth linking to from the quote in the article. Will make that change shortly. But you do seem more knowledgeable on this topic than I, so perhaps you'd like to have a go at a re-write? --Craig 06:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
After a quick scan of the article and a read of the comments here, it seems to me that what the article is presenting is Aleister Crowley's point-of-view. Given that he coined the word, that seems fairly reasonable to me. The article should discuss where the word comes from, what it's originator's thinking was, and (ideally) why the spelling spread into common usage. Surely someone wanting a discussion of rationalism vs. belief in the paranormal is going to enter the word magic in the search bar, not magick. The article could use a thorough copyedit, and an editor might want to make the quotes from Crowley more clear in their attribution, but I don't think the article needs to go into much detail about criticisms of Crowley's belief system, which would belong instead to the article Thelema. A more appropriate contrary point-of-view would be "So and so said in their book Some book, that spelling magic with an extra "k" was really rather precious and silly, especially for someone who called themselves The Great Beast 666." Jkelly 02:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I think those are good points. Unless Mr./Ms. Anonymous returns, I'll remove the NPOV tag in a couple of days. --Craig (t|c) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually took the time to read the article and the npov dispite. The article is fine. The only opinion present is that the Alester Crowly who is the person who changed the word's spelling in the first place, and it is not inappropiete to to include his reasons for doing so, even if the man was way out there. It is virturaly impossible to define magick without its historical and religious context. I think that Mr. Anonymous was either just causing trouble or was ignorant of the origins of modern magickal practice which Alestery Crowley spear headed in all of his weirdness. The NPOV tag really needs to be removed.

                       --Kirrah Aurelia

I've removed it, after coming to the impression that the matter has received more attention and careful thought than is usual for anon-IP NPOV-tagging. Jkelly 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jkelly. I somehow missed the post by Kirrah (I presume) and hadn't got around to coming back here yet. --Craig (t|c) 23:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Further Reading section cut

Does anyone agree with 193.235.128.1 (talk · contribs) that this article should have the above book as "Further reading"? Jkelly 17:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Magickal

That's one of the most contaminated terms I've heard.

The suffix -al derives from Latin -alis, so does the word "magic", hence "magical".

The "ck" and the word "magick" are of typically Germanic origin, hence they shouldn't use the suffix -al, istead I propose them to use Germanic -ish. "Magic" - "magical", but "magick" - "magickish". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.47.20 (talk • contribs) .

Since Aleister Crowley "coined" the word, it has been the norm to follow his usage. Jkelly 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Crowley did not "coin the term," it was used previously in this spelling by both Levi and Dee.
Well, no one said Magick (or magickal terms) have to make much sense, or did they? But it is commonly accepted by occultists that Crowley fudged the spelling so his brand of gematria would work better - at least by those who don't worship that guy on a daily basis.--TheOtherStephan 07:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Worship and follow are two seperate words. The usage of the term was to remove the card trick stage people from the picture, for his day and time. Since then, people doing card tricks and stage magic now call themselves illusionists, to distinguish. I think Magic should be once again used, and magick can go away for issues of confusion for non occult readers. It served its purpose.

Zos 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Things to add

I'm thinking about adding some or all of Crowleys theoroms to this, seeing as how it relates and goes into detail about his form of the word magick. This might change a few things around that either are cited, or need citations. Any thoughts? Zos 09:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I added it all. I think now some of the content in the other sections can be removed, alot of it isnt cited. We, or I, can add other comments on his theoroms later, maybe leave some of the content on that deals with the theoroms, but they almost speak for themselves. Zos 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed the theorems (note spelling). They are protected by copyright and it is much to long a quote to use under fair use (unless you were to discuss each one individually). The copyright holder most likely does not want to GFDL this text. -999 16:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Long quotes

I agree with 999's edit. That was entirely too long a quote; we need to summarise things like this for the benefit of our readers. We should keep in mind that Crowley was mostly published first in the UK -- his work will not be in the public domain until 2039. Jkelly 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is always ansy about copyright, but I should note that Wikipedia is based in the US, for it's english server, and would then go by US copyright law, because the UK would be unable to prosecute. I would suggest getting an expert administrator involved. I haven't looked at it yet, but also consider that it may fall under fair use.
KV 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
For works published 1923 or later, US copyright law supports and mirrors the protection of the country of origin. As Magick was first published in 1929, it is protected by copyright in the US until the UK copyright expires. -999 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Note, in the US any works published prior to 1923 entered the public domain on January 1, 1998, After that, if published before 1978, it lasts for the author's life + 70 years, which means that if he wrote something the day he died, it expires on December 1st, 2017. Any Crowley works prior to May 26, 1936 would be in the public domain today.
I'm unaware of mirrors though. Look at fair use though.
KV 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you are wrong. author's life plus 70 means that all works are protected for 70 years after the death of the author. Publication date makes no difference. Crowley's works first published before 1923 are indeed in the public domain in the US. His works published 1923 or later go into the public domain on Jan 1, 2018 per UK law which is backed up by US law and treaties. -999 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the key word in "fair use" is use - as I stated before, if there were point-by-point commentary on the theorems, that would be fair use. Fair use doesn't just let you quote just because you feel like it, you have to comment, criticize or otherwise discuss the quoted text at length - there should be at least as much original content as quoted content, preferably more. I don't think such point-by-point commentary on the theorems belongs in this article... -999 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside, (and 999 is right, see Berne Convention), part of our job here is to create encyclopedic summaries for our readers. Pasting great swathes of the original texts we are discussing is not an elegant way of doing that. Jkelly 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to do a point by point commentary on the theorems (crowley spells it Theoroms in the book), when I woke. So once I figure this out, I'll add what fair use would be, and anything else to make the article better, and cite the sources.
I had already brought up the fact that some things need to be moved around and commentary would be added. I wished that other would come and discuss it as well (adding commentary). It was the second statement i made on this page. Zos 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Crowley does not spell it "theoroms" in his book. I've owned several editions and none misspelled it. Neither do the online copies make this spelling error. Whatever edition you have, throw it out. -999 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in what you have. It was an honest mispelling at 4am in the morning. Zos 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use of 28 Postulates

I'm sitting over here at Zos' house, he showed me the text in question, which are the 28 postulates as quoted in Book III of Liber ABA. It is listed at http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/index.html, which means that it is considered public domain in the US, the site refuses to list any works that aren't public domain. So, full reproduction of this book, for profit, is 100% valid and legal.

Now, beyond this, there is much reason why this would otherwise qualify for fair use. It's really like fair use of the Bible, seeing as it's public domain, but still, we'll go through the motions.

First, we have that it is for non-profit use. There is no money to be made. It is for education, but not technically for a teacher-student relationship, so we cannot quite use educational use. Zos intends to add onto this in the near future where he also can claim commentary or criticism fair use, because he will be illustrating Crowley's views on magic with a k through the quotes. It also applies as a transformative use, because it is, or will be, expounding upon Crowley's work, and it can also apply under reporting, it is reporting Crowley's views in reference to magic with a k. Neither Zos, nor Wikipedia is gaining any money from it. Wikipedia is NOT FOR PROFIT.

Second, we deal with the nature of the work. It was a factual account (at least in Crowley's eyes), and being so, Zos is reporting the facts and theories of Crowley. Interestingly, according to fair use law, the fact that it was published also helps push it towards fair use.

Third, we look with the extent of the work used, which is the most important part. He is using an EXTREMELY small part of the book, notably Liber ABA. This book, and the book it came from, are both several hundred,if not reaching a thousand pages..... in fact I'm almost certain it is. He is using the necessary, bare minimum amount to mention what Crowley's 28 theorems of Magic with a k are. He is using a very, very small percentage which is the minimum amount necessary.

Fourth, is the impact of the work. Zos does own a legitimate copy, and so can anyone else who just copies the site. It is public domain after all. There will be no negative results upon the sales of Liber ABA, as one would not buy it for the listing of the 28 postulates themselves. In fact, if this had any effect on Crowley's posthumous sales, it would be to increase them.

So, we have a reason to educate people on Crowleys' ideas, factual and published (and well-known) ideas, we use an extremely small part of the work, the bare minimum, his 28 theses (which are notable and theses are certainly publishible. I could, for example, and quote Igor Bogdanov and his brother's thesis from their controversial paper with no problem whatsoever. (See Bogdanov Affair) This does no harm, and the likelihood of whoever holds a copyright today of Crowley's works would be extremely unlikely to attempt to file a suit, which they would invariably fail in..... they'd have to be insane. We are talking about publishing his theses, not all of his explanations or research....... his theses. You cannot talk about Liber ABA in a scholarly manner without mentioning what his theses are!

Of course, I also think it would be much wiser to make an article called Aleister Crowley's 28 Postulates of Magick and list them there. In this article, mentioning it only as his "28 postulates" and expecting people to look there. It is notable enough to have its OWN article. Btw, I am pulling my information on copyrights from a book on copyrights.

KV 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary to make the 28 theorems its own page, its not alot of content after all, and deals specifically with the topic of magick (crowleys). I would also like to point out that [1] also has Magick Without Tears as well, these theorems are in there as well. So there are two books, online, saying the same thing, both can be used, and are being used. Zos 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You've made a false leap here. The fact that the documents are on hermetic.com does not mean the material is in the public domain. Where'd you get that idea? The copyrights of all of Crowley's writings are held by the O.T.O. There have been two court cases, one in the US and one in the UK which have clearly established that. See the article on Ordo Templi Orientis. You clearly know very little about copyright law. The copyright holder may enforce their copyright selectively. In this case, the O.T.O. regularly allows their local bodies and some members to publish his works on the web. That in no way puts them in the public domain. There are only two ways things can enter the public domain: 1) an explicit written statement by the author or copyright holder; 2) expiration of copyright protection. Unless you have in your possession a written statement from the author or copyright holder, you must assume that you do not have the right to copy the document. What you propose is contrary to WP policy, and I will list as a copyright violation in the appropriate venues any attempt to implement it. -999 04:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Please show me where this is specified in policy. Zos 06:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:COPYRIGHT#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others, Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text, Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy. To summarize, material should be quoted under fair use only if it is not possible to summarize or paraphrase it for the purposes of the article. -999 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If I am wrong about the copyright status, I am certainly not wrong about the fair use of those 28 postulates. But I'm not so sure I am wrong about the copyright status.
KV 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you could enquire with the contact for the copyright holder. Here is the contact information. -999 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that 999 may be a little unnecessarily grumpy about this. Nevertheless, 999 is also correct -- the statement that this work is in the public domain is an extraordinary claim, and would need an extraordinary amount of evidence to demonstrate it convincingly. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that this article would benefit from a copying and pasting of the exact text of the 28 postulates, regardless of their licensing status. Are we really incapable of offering a useful summary of important points to our readers? Jkelly 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, I just got to this page. I'm going to do a rework of the page soon, and citing it of course. Zos 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is terrible

This article is terrible. It is haphazard and disjointed. It does not present the subject in any rigorous manner, but simply skips around quoting this out-of-context thing after that out-of-context thing! -999 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the article history, I propose that an entirely new article be started at Magick/temp and moved into place when the current active editors are satisfied with it. -999 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that there is a completely new, expanded and much improved article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema/Peer review/Magick. I think that article should be moved into place immediately so nobody wastes any time on the inferior article currently here. -999 01:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on making sentences that deal primarily with his theorems. I see them as being a great effort in defining his form magic. Some other things need to be added, like Ceremonial magic, his descriptions of garments, tools, accesories,and anything else he has said about it.
Plus, some material might need to be removed. There are no sources which say anything about "paranormal effects". That section needs work. For one, its block text and needs to be shortened to possibly a small quote, or a number a statements and a citation to refer to. Most of that section is POV. Crowleys use of magick really isnt paranormal anyway. He actually dismisses this in his theorems.
Also, some material may be of help, that shows who uses the term "magick", and why, etc.
And whats a better article doing over there? Shouldnt this have been merged to here sooner?

Zos 01:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - I guess we're actually supposed to pay attention to that little box on the top of the talk page? I thought it would just be discussion of this article, not a new article. To get it moved, we'd have to put in a move request, as cut-and-paste moves are not allowed (they lose the edit history). -999 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we might have to get an admin. to delete that page when we merge it. I didn't see your name on the "wiki project thelema" page, or else I would have told you theres a peer discuss section for people editing or helping with Thelema. Eh. Zos 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I put in a request with User:Frater5 that he either request the move or that he cut & paste. He can do it as it appears he is the sole author of the new article. -999 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)