Does magick exist? If so, can modern technology be used in the practice of magick?

As a young climber Crowley had a wicked sense of humor. I've wondered from time to time if he made his career as the creator of Thelema with tongue in cheek.

I've had similar thoughts about Max Tegmark and his Mathematical Universe hypothesis.

Reply to jgill I'm pretty sure that's right. I generally think of him as a performance artist.

Misdirecttion surely exists. :sparkle:

'Mass media' surely uses misdirection to spread misinformation and to compound-reinforce miseducation.

It absolutely exists in fact the majority if not all of America is under at least one spell but typically many more than that and magik works on what you're not aware of, not on what you are aware of, it's what you didn't notice, not what you do notice
although they use things that you did notice to keep you from noticing what you didn't notice

It's used in order to create a misunderstanding so that when they use it in front of you you don't see it

a good example being Hollywood Hollywood shapes the opinions of people, their expectations and their attitudes, and people like Walt Disney who was a 33rd degree Mason he especially wreaked havoc on people as he shaped our opinion and perspective on what magic is IE a Hollywood fairy tale

Which is not in the slightest way accurate to what real magik is
and keep in mind we're all having this conversation using technology which I'm personally on a cell phone which is a scrying mirror consists of quartz crystal silver , gold possibly some other precious metals all alchemically mixed into one thing and I'm using it to cast my emotions and opinion hundreds or thousands of miles away and in to your brain through your eyes.. that's magik

1- Yes, it exists. It isn't what most people consider it to be though.

2- Obviously. I think it is generally harder to do though as the 'mystic' (and therefore the practical use) is generally steeped into ancient (often fictitious) traditions. People who are good at it can get past that easily enough I reckon.

Note: We are talking about age old practices of what we would likely frame today as propaganda and psychology. It is, in simplistic terms, a very complex form of self-hypnosis.

‘Nobody understands quantum mechanics’, said Richard Feynman, one of its giants.

And yet, digital technology depends on it. It works, although we don’t really know how. As if by……never mind.

Quoting I like sushi

Note: We are talking about age old practices of what we would likely frame today as propaganda and psychology. It is, in simplistic terms, a very complex form of self-hypnosis.

:up:

Quoting Wayfarer

As if by……never mind.

Our brains / minds work and we use them to do everything, yet we still don't know how they work. Thus, "the mysterian's hard problem"-of-the-gaps, no?

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” - Arthur C. Clark

In the OP it was described as (paraphrasing) the ability to alter reality at will.

We can effectively alter reality without any spoken words or direct action by encoding our will into physical "spells" triggered by fields manipulated by the firing of the neurons in our brains.

If that doesn't clearly define a physical representation of magic by those definitions then I don't know if anything ever could come closer.

In the sense of the types of magic expressed in fantasy literature and by religion, however, I would firmly say that I do not have any reason to believe in such a thing. IF the universe was created (which I have never been convinced it was) then all of the literature I have seen on the subject suggests that it was created expressly to PREVENT mankind or any other being from turning their personal will directly into power.

OTOH if the evidence I suspect of being the closest thing to "universal" truth to be found can be trusted, there must always be a deterministic chain, even if ti contains probabilistic elements between instigation and outcome, that can always been followed by one with sufficient understanding. The instigator doesn't have to have sufficient understanding but someone must have it long enough to lay down the pathway before it can be taken.

Or, in other words, if it looks like magic you aren't looking closely enough.

Whether we know how this or that dynamic process works in every particular or not, we can be assured that these processes are not effects created by some other means than normal, physical causation, so it they ain't magic.

The only real magic I know of is in A) a simple block and tackle rig; and B) movie theaters.

Quoting 180 Proof

Our brains / minds work and we use it (them) to do everything, yet we still don't know how it (they) work. Thus, "the mysterian's hard problem"-of-the-gaps, no?

Not quite the same. We didn't invent the brain. And you can see the causal chain for all aspects of the classical laws of motion, but when quantum physics was introduced, the factor of indeterminability was intrinsically part of it. Hence the titles and sub-titles of books about the subject, 'the battle for the soul of science', 'what is real?' etc.

I think Feynman's ironic comment was that despite quantum physics predicing results to the accuracy of a fraction of a hair's breadth over 6,000 miles, nobody quite knows how it works. And non-locality is pretty darned close to magic, ain't it?

If we analyze the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed.

That was from The Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer, published in 1889.

I think it's arguable that science has actually reached the stage of practicing magic, without being able to acknowledge that this is what it's doing, as it's supposed to be taboo.

Quoting SkyLeach

In the OP it was described as (paraphrasing) the ability to alter reality at will.

e.g. the wave function collapse.

Quoting Wayfarer

... when quantum physics was introduced, the factor of indeterminability was intrinsically part of it.

Thus, Einstein et al consider QFT (QM) an incomplete theory, and work on QG follows directly from this (e.g. LQG, RQM, String theory, etc). Anyway, as usual, a non sequitur, Wayf :point:

We didn't invent the brain.

:sweat:

Quoting 180 Proof

Thus, Einstein et al consider QFT (QM) an incomplete theory

And, were conclusively proven incorrect.

[quote=John Stewart Bell (1928-1990), quoted in Quantum Profiles, by Jeremy Bernstein ( Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 84)]The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like the "genetic" hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs, which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein's intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous; a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work.[/quote]


It's not a 'non sequiter' 180, just something you don't understand.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's not a 'non sequiter' 180, just something you don't understand.

:ok: :rofl:

Magick seems to be a combination of

1. Dexterity (all body parts, not just the hands).
2. Technoloogy (gadgets, machines, prosthetic arms, etc.).

As technology advances, the need for training/apprenticeship to become a magician becomes unnecessary; anyone with the right button-operable gadget can create illusions that even veteran conjurers can't.

N. B. What's the difference between so-called religious miracles and magick? It all boils down to what the audience is being told: if they're informed that it's all an elaborate trick, it's magick and if not, an attempt is made to subscribe the events to the supernatural, it's a miracle.

Isn't it time for Jesus to admit that he was a magician and not a divine being?

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html

This is all fascinating. I wasn't expecting this kind of a response to my original post for this thread. Thank you to everyone who has commented and/or voted herein. As I feel a conversation about what digital tools actually are, is important to have. Especially among folks who are interested in having this dialogue.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Magick (according to Aleister Crowley) can be defined as, "...the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

Crowley's approach to magick was that anything he did he had done with magick as he had caused change to occur in conformity with his will. Which is accurate, in so much that he did cause something to change in conformity with his will, but ridiculous, as doing anything by hand would also qualify as magick under this broad definition as doing anything would constitute change in conformity with the doer's will. So accurate... but not helpful in anyway. Also, as he advocated for human sacrifice and espoused the magick power available during the act of rape, yet also claimed to not promote violence. So...confused much? Still not a bad read and handy for plot movement in writing. As for thelma...eewww. Just nasty. Look up cakes of light. Yeech.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft In discussion with my wife, she pointed out that many witches use laptops to live stream gatherings over distance, so I guess technology is being used for magick. Maybe not Crowley's magick, but still, being used. I guess we use the tools we are comfortable with eh!

Reply to Book273

Thank you for both of your replies. I suspect your last post is truer than most know.

The cause of the change is the magic. True magic. Not the magician's magic.

Stanford does a thing with random number generators and intent. Supposedly certain people and events can cause patterns to form or something of that ilk.

I propose that one aligned with the force can take the random nature of any technology and bend it to his/her will.