Is magick real? If so, should there be laws governing how magick can be practiced?

Reply to Bret Bernhoft
You should change the second question as conditional.

“Causing change to occur in conformity with will”

Isn’t that literally everything we do? Or at least try to do?

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

if magick is real, should there be law governing how it can be practiced?

Imagine drafting the documentation.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Aleister Crowley once defined magick as, "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will."

Did he really?

That seems broad enough to include regular, non-magickal action.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner That's what I was thinking. Maybe something like The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will alone or unaided.

Reply to jamalrob or “without acting”.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner A magickal act of will is arguably an act.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

If so, should there be laws governing how magick can be practiced?

Reply to jamalrob Blech.

‘Will’ and ‘action’ look like pretty crufty categories so I won’t take sides there.

Insofar as the idea of ‘magick’ is just a souped-up ‘will’, I’m even less interested.

It’s plain enough what Crowley, as quoted, is getting at — that if willing it makes it so, that’s magick. (Feels like that lets in some other class of somethings, but they might be just as wonky. Contrition — that might be one.)

I don’t understand the regulation question. The only Crowley quote I had ever heard was “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

The parting of the sea is magic. Imagine if someone could just will to flood an entire country.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

I don’t understand the regulation question. The only Crowley quote I had ever heard was “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

Yes, it's odd that the question of regulation would come up. It almost makes me suspect that the OP is some kind of satire.

But if we're talking about criminal law rather than mere institutional regulation, I'm staunchly in favour of punishing a person for magickally forcing someone off the edge of a cliff in the same way as if they had physically pushed them.

It would take a special task force to surveil the magic about to be willed. What could be an effective antidote to prevent a murder? Clairvoyance?

Reply to Caldwell A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units.

Quoting jamalrob

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units.

Yes!

I'm having a party here. But can't drink wine, milk only. Suffice it to say, I'm not drunk. But it sure is scary to think that someone could will anything without lifting a finger.

Of course it is. For what else is what you talk of other than (if not temporary) suspension of reality. We find this every day in performing arts, public radio and television, and even in the unexpected smile or wink of a random stranger. We are the magicians! Why we fail to cultivate our own talents is nothing short of abysmal.

Aside from that it's nothing that can't be likened to a debate on firearms or being really tall. Sure there's an argument but good luck enforcing that.

I do not believe magick is real, but that does not make the question of regulation less interesting. Such hypotheical question can give rise to interesting puzzles related to regulation. A colleague and I were toying with the idea of organising a conference on zombies and law for instance (think zombies and inheritance law, does the property return to the undead or is being undead suffieciently different from being alive? do they have rights to bidily integrity in the same way as live humans etc?

I am sure that if magick were a feature of current society it would be regulated, just as everyhing else, but it brings its own special problems. First we would need to know if the use of magick is detectable. For instance clairvoyance or mind reading might contravene rights to privacy if practices, but if it can be done undetected we will have a problem with reinforcing norms against practicing it. I guess there will be information campagns informing the clairvoyant about how to practice their skill ethically. If it can be detected the authorities might well outlaw the practice of magic and reserve it for professionals who have had an education in its use, but ban it for everyone else.

With more interfering magick such as changing weather patterns and summoning wild animals etc. laws need to be in place governing it because that might have severe social consequences. Imagine the impact on sea and air travel when whether patterns could change willy nilly. Imagine also the magickal conflicts that would take place when say a farmer summons rain and a hotel owner sunshine for his guests. The summoning of wild animals of course depends on the animal summoned. Summoning a wild bear in the streets might well lead to a manslaughter charge if the bear indeed kills, or reckless endangerment if it does not, but could. There would of course also be rules for the well being of such animals summoned by the conjurer in question.

The state would of course use claivoyance in the tactical police units mentioned by Jamalrob but that leads to interesting questions in regard to the principle of legality in criminal law. Can I be arrested if I ahve not committed the act yet? Or should such teams limit themselves to changing the conditions in the situation in order for a suspect not to commit a crime. Guidelines will certainly have to be issued.

A further question to consider is if everyone will have such magickal capabilities or only a few. If a few have than some individuals will be qualitatively different then others in a scale not seen here. How do we regulate them in orer for them not to grab power and how do we regulate the others not too mistrust and hate them? In short we would have to weave a dense web of regulation, but no doubt that would be done if magick was real.

edit: in some countries the use of magick is still regulated. In Iran magick and witchcraft are outlawed and fall under ' hudud crimes' on a par with a felony.

Reply to Caldwell :party:

If magick were real then no matter how you tried to regulate it the magician could simply will the legislation to be changed.

Magick is - in simple terms - a kind of self-hypnosis. It is more about psychology and getting people to believe that there is some Actual ‘Magick’ whilst also being able to flip your own belief and confidence in the system/s.

All religious institutes rely, or have relied, on such uses of ‘Magick’.

Reply to Tobias Thank you for your lovely and thought-provoking dissertation, Tobias.

In terms of detection, there are two things to consider:
- is an act an act of nature or an act of magick
- if it is an act of magick, and can be identified as such, can the originator or origination be identified?

Imagine there is a group of bears approaching a house and they tear the dwellers of that unit apart. Then the bears leave, without damaging property or thieving. Not eating from the carcasses of the humans they had just torn apart.

Can it be established sufficiently that they had been summoned? Yes.

Now imagine a dog who becomes rabid and bites everyone in the house. Everyone dies a horrible rabidity-related death. Can magick action be proven here? Or even suspected? The dog could have contracted very easily rabidity by itself. By random chance. Or else it and a rabid animal could have been summoned to perform the act. This can only be decided by repeated occurrence in the community. If it occurs at too high a rate, then magick could be the souce. But what is the statistically significant number, under which the occurrence is random, and above which it is intentional?

Now, take the case of a deadlier pandemic than our current Covid. It is a disease that propagates automatically. Was the first virus created by magick or by natural selection, or by humans in a lab? Totally undecidable.

-----------

Part two is: Whodunnit? Say, it can be established that magick was involved in an illegal act. Do we know who the magus is?

If there is a list of known magi in the community, then they can be questioned... very carefully.

If magick can be performed by anyone, using magick rituals, then we must look for remanants of magick activity, and hopefully we can find footprints, fingerprints, dna evidence of the person having performed the magick.

If, however, magick needs no rituals, and it is undetectable when it is performed or brought into action, then there is no way of enforcing any rules because the perpertrators (magi) are unidentifiable.

----------

Enforcement of rules to govern magick:

- this is the most sensitive part of the process. Presumably a magus can retaliate, at least some magi, even when incarcerated. He or she can retaliate against the arresting officer, against the detectives, against the crown prosecutor, against the honourable justice. Without any possible repercussions to the magus. Do we want this to happen? Obviously we do, but the police, the law enforcement, the judges, don't.

-----------

So my opinion is that it is totally possible that magick is alive and well when considering the aspect of its relationship to regulation and enforcement. We don't hear about its illegal use, because those whose jobs are to detect and punish illegal users or performers of any act, are not stupid enough to enforce the rules against magi, for fear of obvious unavoidable retaliation; and to avoid public panic, they hush up the fact that magick acts are alive and well throughout the land.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Is magick real?

No. (Second question is n/a.)

Quoting 180 Proof

"[M]agic" is a fiat schema (ideation sans mechanism) rather than a causal schema (mechanism).

Quoting 180 Proof

"Results" are just ex post facto rationalizations ... as every good stage magician will tell you.

Reply to 180 Proof :point: :sparkle:

Quoting Tobias

I am sure that if magick were a feature of current society it would be regulated, just as everyhing else, but it brings its own special problems. First we would need to know if the use of magick is detectable.


For instance clairvoyance or mind reading might contravene rights to privacy if practices, but if it can be done undetected we will have a problem with reinforcing norms against practicing it. I guess there will be information campagns informing the clairvoyant about how to practice their skill ethically. If it can be detected the authorities might well outlaw the practice of magic and reserve it for professionals who have had an education in its use, but ban it for everyone else.

MISUSE OF MAGIC
The Galifar Code of Justice includes strict guidelines for the use of magic, as laid down by the Arcane Congress in ages past. These include the following:
Use of any spell that can inflict physical harm on another being—from magic missile to finger of death—is considered to be armed assault. This includes spells that permanently incapacitate a target, such as flesh to stone. Careless use of fire magic is treated especially harshly, due to the significant threat of property damage. If a summon spell conjures a dangerous creature that harms another person, the conjurer is liable for the actions of the beast.
Spells that incapacitate a target—such as sleep— are treated as simple assault.
Spells that tamper with the thoughts of another being—charm person, suggestion, fear—are considered to be a form of fraud.
There are also a few more obscure laws. House Ghallanda has the sole right to make use of heroes’ feast or Leomund’s secure shelter within the city limits. Rope trick and Leomund’s tiny hut can only be used in private rooms. Knock can only be used by or on behalf of the legal owner of the locked item.
The problem with magical crimes is that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Can she prove that she was charmed? The Blackened Book only investigates high-profile cases that have resulted in major damages. Otherwise, if spell use cannot be proven, the crime is not prosecuted. The forces of the law are authorized to use any form of magic in pursuit of their duties.

Tobias is a plant for the council of Sharn confirmed.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

An infamous occultist named Aleister Crowley once defined magick as, "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will." Which is a definition many Pagans rely on to this day. So, generally speaking, we will also use this definition herein.

My arm moves when I will it. Is that magick?

Quoting Michael

My arm moves when I will it. Is that magick?

I hazard a guess that magick is another word for affirmations.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

How does the use of words (casting spells and stuff like that) enter into the concept of magick? Does Donald Trump Quoting Tobias

summoning wild animals

qualify as an example of someone who uses magick?

I suppose if the causal connection between the person's will, and the occurrence could be established, then the person is legally responsible. But doesn't "magic" imply that the causal connection remains hidden? So I think "magick" is an oxymoron. You are saying that the person is necessarily the cause, in a situation where there is no evidence to conclude that the person is necessarily the cause. And the legal issue you raise is just a sham, because you are asking if the person ought to be held responsible in a situation where the person cannot be proven to be responsible. Of course that is a non-starter.

For reasons that seem both obvious and opaque magicians have been at the forefront of the public skeptical movement (the magicians Harry Houdini, James Randi, for example, were debunkers of the paranormal). Odd that if you take skepticism to its logical conclusion, the universe itself could be an magic show (René Descartes' deus deceptor, Gilbert Harman's brain in a vat). So a little skepticism means no magic but dollops of skepticism and magic is back in the game.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I suppose if the causal connection between the person's will, and the occurrence could be established, then the person is legally responsible. But doesn't "magic" imply that the causal connection remains hidden? So I think "magick" is an oxymoron. You are saying that the person is necessarily the cause, in a situation where there is no evidence to conclude that the person is necessarily the cause. And the legal issue you raise is just a sham, because you are asking if the person ought to be held responsible in a situation where the person cannot be proven to be responsible. Of course that is a non-starter.

You did not read my post very carefully. A. your definition of magick is not wildly shared. Magick does not mean that the causal connection is hidden, though in our world the mechanism would be pretty miraculous. However, as I did in my post, assuming that magick does exist, if I may by way of reciting certain formulas cause a creature to appear I am just as much the cause of its appearance as I am when I call my dog and command him to attack.

B. The legal question whether someone is to be held responsible is a different question from whether his or her responsibility can be proven. If some commits the perfect crime and murders his wife, then he is still responsible for her death. He still needs to be acquitted of the murder because it cannot be proven, but that does not mean he is not responsible for it. You may well object that magick does not exist, as assumption I share, but the whole point of the post was to show what could or would happen if it did. Such exercises are not uncommon. The pentagon drafted a scenario analysis of what to do in the case of a zombie apocalypse. By creating such what if scenario's you may understand your own legal and political arrangements better.

Quoting fdrake

The forces of the law are authorized to use any form of magic in pursuit of their duties.

Tobias is a plant for the council of Sharn confirmed.

Hah! That is cool. However do consider the anti-constitutional nature of the last line. It is the criminal code of magick a police state would draft. I have no protection against true seeing spells, against clairvoyance, I might be charmed into cooperating against my own interest or to extort a confession etc. It would accommodate a society of mass magical surveillance.

I read a lot of Crowley when I was younger. Peter Carrol too, and the Kybalion. Early 20th century occultism is certainly interesting. You get a blend of emerging sciences, old occult traditions, esoteric Eastern philosophy, etc. all blended together.

As a whole though, I eventually found it a bit of a let down as a topic. Reason being is that these are synchretist blends borrowing from tradition to put a patina of authority on their systems. You get a lot of Platonism that is just dressed up in obscurantism to seem more mystical. I still like some, Meditations On The Tarot is a classic. Authors are careful to imply magick is more than just a psychological trick you enact upon yourself- that you can change the weather or the stock market with sigils and ritual, but are never explicit about it because it's a claim that is falsifiable. I find the whole scene to be fairly frustrating too, because if you call out these objections, you "just haven't understood" the esoteric writers.

The other problem is that the systems tend to cherry pick and bastardize other systems. So, Quabbalah in Crowley is not like actually reading a scholar on Kabbalah such as Schloem at all.

So is magick real? I suppose in some sense it is, in that there are practiced for creating mystical experiences. These experiences can lead to great insights. For example, Boehme's insight on the semiotics of sublation and the necessity of being to exist to define any Godhead. This in turn inspired formalized systems from Hegel to Whitehead.

However, I feel like Crowley type systems fall into the problem of moving beyond talking about mystical experience, and into making claims (never explicitly) that you can influence the physical world through magical processes that defy all confirmation.

Reply to Tobias
Actually my post was directed toward Bret and the op. I just inserted a line from your post. so I put quotations to give proper credit to you, for that phrase.

Quoting jamalrob

That's what I was thinking. Maybe something like The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will alone or unaided.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

or “without acting”.

Careful ST, now you're stepping on us Taoists - wu wei, acting without acting.

Quoting jamalrob

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units.

Been done - "Minority Report." Good movie.

Quoting fdrake

council of Sharn

I looked it up and got "Council on Aging, Town of Sharon Massachusetts."

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

When using the word "magick", the implication is that what we're discussing is not stage magic. But something else.

We all know what "magic" or "magick" is. Samantha wiggles her nose and Darrin's dick gets three inches longer. Harry Dresden summons a demon to do his will. Alice watches some cat disappear little by little till only it's smile is left. Witches fly on brooms. Madam Rue mixes up Love Potion #9 and some guy starts kissing police officers.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

?Tobias
Actually my post was directed toward Bret and the op. I just inserted a line from your post. so I put quotations to give proper credit to you, for that phrase.

Ohh, I misinterpretete that in that case. My apologies :)

Quoting jamalrob

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units.

Some are ahead of you:

Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft (Aug 19, 2013)
Saudi religious cops trained to fight magic (Feb 2, 2016)

Supernatural magic(k) is fiction, imaginary, found in fantasy stories and tall tales (and here sort of).
Those Saudi Arabian accused are therefore innocent of those charges.
So trivial it is to imagine a glass of wine materializing in my hand out of the blue, though.

Does anyone have an example of Magick they can site?

I'd be open to using a somewhat more "magical" vocabulary to talk about the role of our thoughts in the world.

For instance, to think of someone as your enemy is to make them your enemy, though it might be news to them. I've flirted with defining away this sort of thing, taking "thinking" here as a sort of shorthand for how we are disposed to act.

But there is precedent for going the other way. "The mind is its own place, and can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." (In a somewhat Miltonic mood, Geoffrey Hill said a poem is a "fortress of the imagination".)

This way seems to imply a pretty heavy commitment to free will; the other way is more flexible.

I suppose I'd like to say, there is something special about thought that isn't really captured in the somewhat mechanical model I used to entertain. Magic talk seems to go a bit overboard with that, but maybe it's worth thinking about what they're trying to capture.

Does magick exist? Yes.
. . . is it possible that the paranormal is more ordinary than we assume? Yes.
Does prayer work? I do not know, but I think it might, depending on who does it and if they do it "right." I have to take this opportunity to jab Rush Limbaugh and his disciples: If hope is not a strategy, then neither is prayer. So go suck on that.
Are miracles possible? Yes (but the definition of "miracle" is troublesome).
. . . . if magick is real, should there be law governing how it can be practiced? No. Such a law would be a waste of time because magick is beyond the jurisdiction, literally and practically, of any who would pretend to enforce.
. . . should there be institutionalized rules for how magick is conducted? No. See "law."
. . . should there be punishment(s) for violating those regulations? No. See "law."
Is magick real? Yes.

Enforcement protocols are stupid, and bring to mind the Salem Witch Trials. Ineffective and stupid.

I believe magick is real, and I have experienced it.

I also think others have experienced it. However, like the movie "Men Who Stare at Goats", it is beyond the jurisdiction of those who would pretend to reduce it to their non-magick-world ambitions.

I think spooks (CIA, KGB, et al) have crossed into the realm, with astral projection, remote viewing, moving objects with the mind, etc. but I also think it does them no good whatsoever, at least as far gaining advantage over opponents.

A final thought, by analogy only (could apply to moving objects with the mind): At one time, people were awed by the sunrise and the sunset. They may have perceived it as magick. Then along came those who don't believe in magick, reducing the phenomena to calculations, paper, science, physics, reasonable explanation, critical and analytic thought, etc.. They thought that by doing so they had pulled the magick carpet out from under the phenomena. They were and are wrong. It is still magick to this day, notwithstanding all the truth of their efforts. Only those who are no longer awed by it, who no longer perceive the magick of it, have suffered. I would feel sorry for them, but they are off in their frenetic search of something they will never find, simply because of the search.

There are still a few among them though, after a long days work in the lab, who sit out back with more than a few beers, watching the sun set or rise, and cry with the awesome magick of it. Good on them.

The same analysis could apply to a pre-contact Amazonian Indians seeing an airplane fly over head. The pilot only thinks he knows better, and that simply physics holds him aloft. But it is magick. Everything in life is Magick, most especially the "now." I won't listen to one who has not found "the now" tell me that magick doesn't exist.

Done.

Although Crowley came from wealth and later made a living as the founder of Thelema, one should observe he had a wicked sense of humor and it's quite possible he chuckled at the naivety of his numerous followers while lurking behind the Green Curtain. He was a pioneer British climber and wrote of his adventures on the rock and his feuds with other notable climbers, like Owen Glynn Jones. Here is an anecdote that may give one pause when asking, Was he really serious about "Magick"?

Another very amusing incident occurred at Arolla. A little way above the old hotel is a large boulder, which had never been climbed from the hotel side. I spent some time before I found out how to do it. One had to traverse the face to the right, with a minimum of hand hold and foot hold, until one came to a place where the slope eased off. But this point was defended by a bulge in the rock which threw one out. It was just possible for a very slim man with a prehensile abdomen. But it was a matter of a quarter of an ounce one way or the other whether the friction grips were sufficient or not. It was one of the most difficult pieces of rock climbing I had ever tackled.

I decided to have some fun with it and taught a girl how to do it. I then offered a hundred francs to any guide who could get up. We got together a little party one afternoon and I proceeded to show off. Several other people tried, but without success. I began to mock them and said, 'But this is absurd --- you fellows can't climb at all --- it's quite easy --- why, I'd back a girl to do it --- won't you have a try, Miss So-and-so?' My pupil played up beautifully and pretended to need a lot of persuasion. Ultimately, she offered to try if she were held on a rope from above. I said, 'Nonsense, you can do it perfectly well by yourself!' The company protested that she would kill herself; and she pretended to be put on her mettle, refused all help and swarmed up in great style.

This made everybody very much ashamed. Even the guides were stung into trying it. But nobody else got up. So I started to coach them on the rope. Several succeeded with the moral support and without being hauled. A fair number, however, came off and looked rather ridiculous, dangling. People began the urge the chaplain to try his hand. He didn't like it at all; but he came to me and said he would go if I would be very careful to manage the rope so that he did not look ridiculous, because of the respect due to his cloth. I promised him that I would attend to the matter with the utmost conscientiousness. I admitted that I had purposely made fun of some of the others, but that in his case I would tie the rope properly; not under his arms but just above the hips.

Having thus arranged for the respect due to his cloth, I went to the top of the rock and sat sufficiently far back to be unable to see what was happening on the face. When he came off, as the rope was fastened so low, he turned upside down. I pretended to misunderstand and jerked him up and down for several minutes before finally hauling him up, purple in the face and covered with scratches. I had not failed in the respect due to his cloth. But quite a number of people were sufficiently lacking in taste to laugh at him"

It's sometimes hard to distinguish technology/science from magick (many magic tricks these days use gadgets, vide Peter Popoff).

Was Jesus an ophthalmologist who performed cataract surgery (cured blindness), did Jesus prescribe rifampcin, dapsone, and clofazamine (heal a leper), did Jesus lace 5 loaves and 2 fish with nesfatin-1 (satiety molecule), did Jesus clone himself (resurrection)...?

I'm quite intrigued by the fact that God, the divine, seems to be mixed up with healthcare. No wonder physicians "suffer" from God Complex (my sympathies go out to a certain SD).

Reply to Wayfarer

That is an interesting thought. The language used for such a series of documents would probably be both tedious and extravagant. I would hope that, if these kinds of rules were ever to be drafted, the language chosen would be done so quite carefully.

I expect no one to agree with me on this but, Magik is real and is used every day infact everyone here is under several spells and completely oblivious to it

Holly wood has done a massive disservice to mankind by blinding the world to what real magik is by showing people this Hollywood magic crap that is far from what magic is really like and so they have made the people blind to the truth

How come you know the truth?

Quoting T Clark

We all know what "magic" or "magick" is.

Yeah, sufficiently advanced technology. :sparkle: (Beam me up!)