Archive for the ‘Systematization’ Category

On Creating Magick

BY: Mark

I’ve been re-reading Aleister Crowley’s definitions of Magick this morning while reflecting on the effect visualization can have on the magician’s internal mood as well as the external world. We begin with his basic definition: “Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” Like a number of Crowley’s aphorisms, it seems overly simplistic at first glance, but as you reflect upon it, it unpacks nicely to become a solid foundation upon which to erect further structures. “Magick,” like “Art” and “Science” is simply a term to classify a class of data–be it a rubric of action, a fleeting thought, or a full-on life methodology. Magick, if you will, is a way of thinking, of approaching how we interact with both ourselves and the external world.

If reality is the consensual lie agreed upon by the group mind, then each person’s thoughts contribute to reality. How each person understands reality informs it, and by extension, what you think of reality shapes it as well. While we currently define thoughts as extremely ephemeral states of existence, each and every thought has the ability to create change. Firstly, in our own selves; secondly, and by virtue of their adoption by the larger group-mind, the world can be shifted as well.

Descartes’ axiom–”I think, therefore I am”–can be extended to “I think, therefore I can.”

There are, of course, some physical considerations to address concerning the “I can” part of that last statement, but generally speaking, all change has come about because an individual had an idea and strove to extend that idea beyond the mere thought.

One of the basic complaints held against magick is the “Yes, but why don’t you visualize winning the lottery and be done with it?” argument, and Crowley provides some escape hatches in his definitions for this sort of argument.

Argument III.3: “Every failure proves that one or more requirements of the postulate have not been fulfilled.”

Argument III.4: “The first requisite for causing any change is through qualitative and quantitative understanding of the conditions.”

Argument III.5: “The second requisite of causing any change is the practical ability to set in motion the necessary forces.”

Forcing the lottery to conform to your Will is complicated, after all, and there are a lot of moving parts. Better to stick with things you can influence. Certainly, you can argue that these caveats render Crowley’s entire system nothing more than a thought experiment, but I believe that these caveats simply point out the importance of a more fundamental understanding of Will and Thought.

Before we go galavanting off to making lottery numbers fall as we imagine them, let us consider a corollary to above definitions. Essentially: How we interpret reality is also a magickal act. We are all magicians, and every system of magick is a personal one because it is nothing more than how we Act and React.

Change flows both ways, and our thoughts are constantly creating our understanding of the consensual reality. While we can imagine winning the lottery, our thoughts are not strong enough to effect that change to the consensual reality of the lottery. We, in turn, react to this lack of change by abandoning our vision as being the dominant one. In effect, we retract our Desire when it fails to come to pass.

Yes, I know that wishing does not make it so, but the point here is one of scale. Thinking of change doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. A critical part of being a magician is being receptive to the possibilities that change has occurred. Reacting is necessary piece of participation in the systemic flow of other magickal systems in play.

We are not alone, after all. Everyone else is trying to make Magick too.

Hilobrow on Generations

BY: Mark

Hilobrow creator, Joshua Glenn has created what he calls a “generational periodization scheme,” wherein he classifies everyone during the last 150 years as falling into 10-year spans that quantify their contribution to culture, history, and society. As he points out in his article on The Cuspers, his demarcation of the categories falls on years that end with “3″ and “4.” Eras don’t line up with the changes of decades, really, because even though we like things all nice and tidy, culture certainly isn’t.

The Generations tag, scooping up all of the commentary and lists of creators and their like-minded generationists. Me? I’m a Reconstructionist, albeit partial to the work of The Psychonauts.