In the last couple posts, it seemed that there seems to be a bit of disagreement about the very basics of magick.
I’m not sure that this is an accurate statement. One of the problems with many of these accounts of magical powers from a long time ago is that over time the stories tend to be exaggerated. The difficulty is figuring out how much.
Well, why exactly is it that we’re sure that these stories were exaggerated? I know that this is the general concensus in most magickal circles, but how do you know? I may be missing some vital piece of information where a soldier in Caesar’s army witnessed a “shapeshifting” and described it as simply being a shift from man to beast in actions and mindset, and if this is true then I will be extremely glad to hear of it because it makes my possible goals far simpler.
On the other hand, I really don’t think that there is an actual eyewitness statement of an ancient shapeshifter. There are also the seemingly eyewitness statements of the most commonly known magickal stories: turning water into wine, walking on water, healing blindness, etc. I know that many of us have turned our backs on Christianity, but it is still a book of stories from a time where magick was far more common.
So what possible goals could we reach through magick? Could we really have the Harry Potter style magick? Or is it that something of this nature is completely out of reach for us? And why is it out of reach for us? We have all heard stories of levitation, of curing diseases instantaneously, shapeshifting, of calling forth the elements to destroy villages, of parting the waters to cross a sea. These are common stories in myths, and all seem to be quite extraordinary, but at the same time, we say that by visualizing and manipulating energy we can heal the sick (slowly and only in ways that we don’t understand scientifically), cause people to fall ill (by a disease that we cannot actually see or witness the effects of until it has taken hold), can call spirits to us (though not so much ones that we can see, more that we “know” are there), and create spells that will bring love and money to us (though not in any way that we can describe). How exactly are these different? The difference is not in how extraordinary they are, it’s in how easily we can accept them. So how much can we actually affect the physical world through the use of magick?
Remember this: Science doesn’t understand the physical world any better than it did 2000 years ago. We don’t know why anything happens. Gravity is unexplained, the way that an atom is held together is unexplained, the fact that the world is actually matter-less and yet we are solid is unexplained. We absolutely can predict what will happen if we do something. We understand what happens when you drop an apple from a tree, but who knows why? No one does. So why can’t it be that we all expect it to happen, so it does?
The world gives you exactly what you want, every time. The only problem is that it’s what all of you wants, not just the conscious part of you. I want to travel through time, but my subconscious expects me not to so I don’t. I want to throw fireballs but my subconscious says that I’m being silly, so I don’t. I want to find a girl that is perfectly suited for me and my subconscious says that that’s perfectly reasonable and that I can affect that change in the world, so I will find that girl. How are these any different? I’m able to “cast my spells” effectively only when I truly believe in them. Maybe what we should be working towards is being able to believe…
I am of the opinion if a high power would choose for us to have those kind of powers we would be demigods but scince we don’t have those kinds of powers we are put her to learn. but there in in my mind there would be no way humanly posable to reach this level of understanding. we have lots that we as humans don’t undersytand and the same goes for magick the more we study it the more we understand but to reach that level in magick would be like a budest(sp?) reaching true nervana in just one life time. We try to understand and put these things we think we know with lables to make us feel like we know them and in reality we truely don’t know it is something beyond our understanding. The anchent stories are just that we of the modern age, can not truely know if the stories were true or not, we have truely forgotton a lot of the old way back when our acestors practices forms of magick. so in the end practices that the anchent shamans of the native american tribes practiced a totaly diffrent for of magick where they whole heartly believed that they could shapeshift. But that practice is long gone and who are we to say that they didn’t. because we will never know. What is the key ingredant in and spell, belief, belief that it will work. This is something they believed in whole heartly. So under it all who are we to truely question that it did or did not happen. Magick can not truly be fully understood and these stories are just that stories that we can use to posably again a higher understanding of the magick that we as pagans practice.
I personally think that you drop science from the subject of magic too easily. Using science you can explain some magic. Things that were considered magic years ago can now be explained through science, for example, using herbs to heal. Placing your energy into the herbs might help strengthen them but the chemistry behind them gives them that ability in the first place. Also, numerous deseases that were believed to have been caused by magic have now been connected to bacteria and viruses, things people before didn’t really think of as a cause. Just because science doesn’t explain everything, and everything thought to be “facts” in science might not be right, you shouldn’t dismiss it on those facts alone. An understanding of the way things work (not necessarly why they work that way) can help with magic I’ve found. Physics tells us that atoms move between everything we touch, although this is on at the level of the atoms, it can be used to explain a connection with everything as through these atoms, which hold an energy of their own, everything can be connected. Personally, picturing these atoms move between me and those things I wish to empower help move the energy to me. Science and religion don’t necessarly have to be distanced from one another and through studying one it is possible to learn more about the other. Just a thought = )
PS, going back to beliefs, quantum physics (if correct) shows that anything is possible through many dimensions being present due to the infinite number of choices we can make. Through connecting to these different dimensions, we can, in effect, travel through time, space and realities. Maybe this is how people used to shape shift, by realizing these different dimensions and changing the… layout, for lack of a better word… to suit the shapes they wished to portray
maybe your right joanna i did drop scince a lil to fast but scice can’t really explain the metaphysics that i was adressing i agree scince tells us what herbs and what not can do but it can not explain how and achent navive american or other anchent persons acheved the belief of shapeshifting and what not
also i feel that when determining an effect of an herb is not so much scince as it is nature. The Anchent peoples didn’t use scince to determine the effects of herbs they watched nature and even tried the herbs themselves. Yes science gives us a more deeper understanding of the effects of herbs without haveing to look at nature or harming ourselves in the quest to find what a picticular plant is capabable of.
science comes from observations (exactly what the ancients did) and from that a hypothesis is formed and from that it is tested and tweaked to represent what is most commonly found. Science is nature
Just a though but lughnasadh is coming up. Maybe a get together should be planned? we can start off this pagan community with a harvest festival?
I have to disagree scince isn’t nature. Nature is something that hapens naturaly. Scince is man made and man’s observation of nature to me scince and nature are two complete diffrent things.
Joanna,
How is science different from magick then? I notice that crystals seem to focus light (energy), so I hypothesize that the crystal will allow me to work with energy more easily. So I test the hypothesis and tweak it or disregard it. Science is simply a method of understanding cause and effect.
Currently, science has tools that enable it to see much smaller particles than the ancients could, but they still are doing the same exact thing that people have always done. Do something and watch the effect. Then make a generalization that is helpful to in some way. This is exactly what we, as magicians/witches, need to do and have done in the past. This is the part of magick that is becoming stagnant, and is the part that I’d like to change.
The problem with a harvest festival is the lack of any large centralized community. I live in Austin, but there are people that live in England, Corpus Christi, Midland/Odessa, Florida, etc. It would be very difficult to hold a festival that many of us could attend. Granted, I’m absolutely willing to hold one if there are enough people that would want to go (and enough people to help out).
Your confusing something that is of mankind with something that is most definantly not, mankind came from nature after all. No matter what mankind decides is true with his science, it doesn’t effect nature. Unless you believe you can a book about a car is in fact a real car and you can fix the car by working on the book. When the world was thought to be flat it was NOT in fact flat, it was always round.
Nope, no “is nature” here.
Science
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
The top one I think best fits the gist here.
Nature
–noun 1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature.
16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace.
To clarify my comment:
“I’m not sure that this is an accurate statement. One of the problems with many of these accounts of magical powers from a long time ago is that over time the stories tend to be exaggerated. The difficulty is figuring out how much.”
We know from basic psychological research that stories passing through oral traditions are just about always exaggerated or distorted, simply because oral tradition is not a perfect means of transmitting information. I get the sense that how you’re reading it is that I’m trying to say that all of the old accounts of magical abilities are made up. I’m not. What I’m saying is that we need to figure out the degree to which these stories are exaggerated, not that they didn’t happen or weren’t based on something that really happened.
At any rate, you don’t need to go digging through historical records to find eyewitnesses to physical shapeshifting. Here you go:
http://www.tribune.com.ng/24052008/features.html
Now here’s the question – do you think that these eyewitnesses really saw what they were reporting? If so, do you think it’s more likely that (A) this woman’s mass magically changed from 100-some pounds down to 10 or so, (B) that she was magically placing the image in the minds of onlookers. In my magical practices, I’ve never seen anyone manage to do (A) but I have seen quite a few cases of (B). Further investigation or the witnesses would be required to determine if they are indeed accurate reporters, but my default position is to take people at their word regarding their experiences unless there’s a reason to think otherwise.
As far as belief goes, it’s important but not the whole picture. If belief were the only thing that mattered people in the manic phase of bipolar disorder would be blasting their ways out of psychiatric institutions all the time using fireballs or lightning bolts or whatever godlike powers they sincerely believe they possess. It’s very important that you don’t doubt yourself when you cast a spell – doubt will ruin it every time. But it doesn’t go the other way around.
As a magician there are still a lot of physical limitations that you have to contend with, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get decent results, even very powerful ones. If I hypothetically needed to destroy a village I would summon a tornado up here in Minnesota, or a hurricane if I lived on the gulf coast, and direct it to a specific area. Remember after Hurricane Katrina, when the majority of refugees from New Orleans wound up in Houston? The next big hurricane, Rita, hit Houston. Coincidence? Maybe, but I’ll always wonder if it wasn’t a magician or magical group launching an all-out attack on some other individual or group living in New Orleans who then relocated to Houston.
Magick is different than science only because one of the key variables is consciousness, which makes magical experiments harder to replicate than mechanical ones. This is because we don’t have reliable instruments for measuring consciousness – though the neuroscientists are working on it and we get closer every year.
Ananael,
First and foremost, I really did not mean this post as an attack on your comment and I hope that you didn’t take it that way. I am actually enjoying your comments immensely and am glad to hear another view.
I agree that almost all stories become exaggerated, but I wanted to play devil’s advocate a bit. The point I was trying to make was that even if there was no one that could physically shapeshift or walk on water, why is it that we shouldn’t be able to?
I’m glad you brought up the psychiatric institutions because (1) I hadn’t thought of that before and (2) it paves the way for a really good logical discussion on the basic pillars of magick which I’m about to write a blog post about.
I really would like to do some brainstorming as to how we could move the study of magick towards a more scientific approach. I understand that consciousness is extremely difficult to factor in, but it’s still possible to look at trends.
I believe it’s worthy to point out that research conducted on yogis in Thailand has shown absurdly high levels of bioelectricity flowing through their bodies. Their energy levels literally ramp up to ridiculous levels. It has also been shown that men can control the radiation of body heat, heartbeat, respiratory rate, body structure (as in the reinforcement of), and other physical characteristics.
These things were measured by scientific instruments. Our biggest challenge is to affect change outside the human sphere.
Of course, much more still could be done within the anatomy as well.
[Just a catalyzing argument, if you will]
No problem on my end, I didn’t see your comments as an attack. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t coming off like Randi and his skeptic buddies – “we can dismiss those stories because they are all made up.” I’ve seen plenty of that in various online discussions.
What’s going on at the moment in the area of “measuring consciousness” is that neuroscientists are relating functional MRI patterns to specific thoughts and are having some success at it. They can, for example, set up two groups of people and have each group look at a different image. Then, using the functional MRI, they can tell which image each person saw with about 90% accuracy. Not bad at all, especially since they only started working on it a few years back. It looks like we may have a real opportunity to supplant statistical methods in this area within the next decade, assuming that the researchers can keep refining the techniques.
boring it don,t say how to get magick