Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what is magick

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    DEBATE! what is magick

    my thread will begin with the question: what is magick? this is the main question which i will try to answer in this thread. i will quote from agrippa and paracelsus to understand what is magick?

    according to agrippa, magick is the faculty of wonderful virtue of natural things. for example the attaction power of loadstone is magick, the faculty to some herbs to cause love of other person is magick etc..the job of the magician(also known as wizard and sorcererors) is the job of producing wonderful effect by mixing natural things.

    now we will see some real life example to find out if the definition of agrippa is right or not. we will see what the wizards or sorcerors did in olden times as written by many authors. according to odisi, circe, the witch, turned the men of odesious into beasts with the help of a magic potion. but hermes gave a particular herb to odesious that destroy the effect of the magic potion. here the potion is nothing but the mixture of natural thing.

    in the drama macbeth, shakespere wrote about 3 witches that mixed many herbs and animal parts in the cauldron and predicted that macbeth will become the king of denmark. again mixture of natural thing to produce wonderful effects.

    in one of the wall painting of villa of pompei, we could see that a woman, lets a man to inhale a particular kind of smoke coming from the alter which allow the man to see the future. now the smoke must be of some herbs.the wonderful faculty of the herb is to make the inhaler see the future.

    so we can conclude that what agrippa said is right because many sorceror or wizards and witches produced wonderful effects by mixing natural things. the magick is the wonderful faculty of these natural things.

    from this definition we can deduce the usage of some of the witch's aparatus;

    1] cauldron: to mix natural thing to produce things(potion etc.) that have a magickal effect.

    2] dagger: to cut the roots and animal parts.


    3] cat: to receive signs of future events or presence of spirits.

    in the next post i will discuss how the magician collects wonderful virtues from the world.
    there is a lot difference between theory and practice. practice comes before theory. practical wisdom is more valuable than theoritical "knowledge".

    #2
    Re: what is magick

    after 26 views and 0 reply i think that either people in this forum did not like magick , nor they understood my writings nor they like logical thinking.its quite simple but i finally understood.

    fine

    thank you.
    there is a lot difference between theory and practice. practice comes before theory. practical wisdom is more valuable than theoritical "knowledge".

    Comment


      #3
      Re: what is magick

      ...how exactly did you want people to respond to this? It seems like an essay. You didn't even really leave it open for discussion.

      selume proferre

      Comment


        #4
        Re: what is magick

        I don't really understand what you're trying to say, because your writing is not that clear. But I can tell you that your information about Macbeth is wrong. Have you ever read Macbeth? For one, they predict that he will become king of Scotland (not Denmark). Which he does. But their full prediction is not all that wonderful! The point of the play is that it is Macbeth himself, through his ruthless ambition and arrogance, facilitates his own rise to power and then his downfall... not magic. The witches easily manipulate him through words alone. Macbeth digs his own grave, and he eventually falls into it.

        Well, that's my take on it. It's clear that some degree of blame rests on Macbeth's flaws, but the question of whether or not Macbeth is under any supernatural influence can be argued both ways. But that's a different discussion!

        Comment


          #5
          Re: what is magick

          I'm not sure you're using faculty or virtues in quite the right contexts.

          Either way, maybe you're asking for a dissenting opinion? If that's the case, here's my take:

          You seem to be basing your definition of magick on very limited viewpoints, which in turn seems to me like you already know what you think magick is and have found a few references to confirm it. I see you are a naturalist, so i can understand where your viewpoint is coming from.

          I don't think magick is just herbs and stones. Nor do i think these things are even NEEDED to perform magick. For me, magick is about intent and is 100% from the mind an dnot from rocks and sticks (wonderful as they might be).
          Please disregard typos in above post. I browse the web on a Nook and i suck at typing on touch screens.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: what is magick

            I don't entirely understand why you brought Shakespeare into the topic, op. It's a strange way to discuss the nature of magic as we practice it because Shakespeare wasn't exactly writing from a realistic perspective. That aside the witches in Macbeth mostly worked with divination. You cited "real life examples" based in myths and plays.
            We all know that herbs traditionally play a role in the work of witches. Most practitioners of magic see magic as a natural force and the practice of casting spells and using magic as tapping into a natural energy. I'm not sure what the point of this post was.

            selume proferre

            Comment


              #7
              Re: what is magick

              Originally posted by orchestrion View Post
              I don't entirely understand why you brought Shakespeare into the topic, op. It's a strange way to discuss the nature of magic as we practice it because Shakespeare wasn't exactly writing from a realistic perspective. That aside the witches in Macbeth mostly worked with divination. You cited "real life examples" based in myths and plays.
              We all know that herbs traditionally play a role in the work of witches. Most practitioners of magic see magic as a natural force and the practice of casting spells and using magic as tapping into a natural energy. I'm not sure what the point of this post was.
              i was goin gto bring this up, but then i figured all myth was written by man anyway so i suppose Shakespeare and Homer are just as good references as anything else. Suppose we chalk this one up to different strokes.
              Please disregard typos in above post. I browse the web on a Nook and i suck at typing on touch screens.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: what is magick

                Hmm, I suppose that's valid, Just_Wondering, but at the same time they're also very different from say an account by a practitioner of magic and are generally considered fictitious works. Especially Shakespeare.

                selume proferre

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: what is magick

                  I write science fiction, that doesn't mean I know how to build androids... Shakespeare wrote fiction and he never claimed to be writing anything else. I don't think his plays should ever be cited as fact, because that's just not so... That's like citing Harry Potter.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: what is magick

                    Originally posted by orchestrion View Post
                    Hmm, I suppose that's valid, Just_Wondering, but at the same time they're also very different from say an account by a practitioner of magic and are generally considered fictitious works. Especially Shakespeare.
                    well yeah that's what i mean though. Before i go on, i want to state that i'm not tryin gto offend anyone's practices but do note i'm an atheist.

                    I figure all religion is fiction in the beginning. Gods were created by early civilizations to explain things they didn't understand. Thus, lightning was Zeus throwing his bolts down from the sky, etc. Etc.

                    The experiences after the creation of said gods are genuine, however the belief system is based on a fictional story. So, it's logical to assume any work of fiction could build its own belief system. To say that the Greek gods are real and Shakespeare's witches are fake seems a little silly to me.

                    It comes in handy when working with deity for ritual. With this mindset, i can worship at the altar of the Terminator and glean strength and discipline from him. Even though he was a fictional character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

                    Na'mean? It's all difference of opinion. Perhaps this person's entire belief structure revolves around these stories. It's not a common religion, persay, but obviously it now exists.

                    I hope that was clear. I'm rereading an dmy eyes are going wobbly.
                    Please disregard typos in above post. I browse the web on a Nook and i suck at typing on touch screens.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: what is magick

                      Genuine myth is early medieval literature like shakespeare is late medieval literature but its not the literary part thats worth looking at if youre interested in anything beyond entertainment. They have value because they can reflect a secular or non christian belief present at the time. A midsummer nights dream for example might give us information on how the summer solstice and fairies were viewed in popular/folk culture at the time but like the dramatic witch scene all that worshipping diana as a vestal virgin stuff is just something the author put together for entertainment. Its not intended to be anything other then dramatic and romantic.

                      Its a common mistake people make I wouldnt worry about it too much, there are plenty of celtic neopagans who take the stories in mythology literally and make utter clowns of themselves. I know loads of them. Atleast youre not jumping around trying to perfect 'the hero's salmon leap' or worshipping a charactor invented purely for the story as a god. Live and learn.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: what is magick

                        Just_Wondering, I think you have a point, but to my eyes the biggest difference between "genuine myth" as JamesByrne says and Shakespeare is this: mythology, by definition, claims to be real, and Shakespeare doesn't. It's not any different from today's popular fiction just because it's dated. Not that people aren't free to base their religion on a fictional work, but there is a difference there. I think the way it was originally presented does matter in its validity, especially in a discussion like OP's.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: what is magick

                          Originally posted by Gallifrey View Post
                          Just_Wondering, I think you have a point, but to my eyes the biggest difference between "genuine myth" as JamesByrne says and Shakespeare is this: mythology, by definition, claims to be real, and Shakespeare doesn't. It's not any different from today's popular fiction just because it's dated. Not that people aren't free to base their religion on a fictional work, but there is a difference there. I think the way it was originally presented does matter in its validity, especially in a discussion like OP's.
                          Thanks for your response! I think it only matters insomuch as the OP trying to play off their beliefs as being factually and universally correct.

                          And i get what you're saying about the writers presentin gtheir works as fiction vs. real life, but that leads to me wondering why someone else must believe something first before you're allowed to. I understand it was not Shakespeare's intent to create religion, however it was not the woolly mammoth's intent to create Cyclops either and it still happened.
                          Please disregard typos in above post. I browse the web on a Nook and i suck at typing on touch screens.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: what is magick

                            Originally posted by Just_Wondering View Post
                            Thanks for your response! I think it only matters insomuch as the OP trying to play off their beliefs as being factually and universally correct.

                            And i get what you're saying about the writers presentin gtheir works as fiction vs. real life, but that leads to me wondering why someone else must believe something first before you're allowed to. I understand it was not Shakespeare's intent to create religion, however it was not the woolly mammoth's intent to create Cyclops either and it still happened.
                            Oh, yes, I agree about that first part. I think this is probably the least of OP's problems with this thread xD But like I said, people are allowed to believe whatever they like. It's only in a debate where the author's intentions make a big difference. If the author doesn't believe it, then you can't really use them to support your argument. You can't validly say "Shakespeare said this" because that isn't what Shakespeare meant. You can only say "I think this". (And I honestly fail to see how the woolly mammoth comparison is relevant to an author's intention in writing a book, no offense. Woolly mammoths did not create Cyclopes, people did.)

                            And thinking about it as an author, if someone decided to actually start a religion based on of my fictional books... I'd be, um, well, I'd think it was odd. I would be a bit concerned. And probably be sending a cease and desist letter if they were proselytizing. That's an unrelated issue here, but still problematic. To spread around beliefs presenting a work intended to be fictional as a religion would kind of be ignoring the author's intellectual property rights and disrespecting their wishes as to how their material be used. This doesn't affect Shakespeare, of course.

                            ...I suppose this is all a different topic entirely, though.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: what is magick

                              Quoting Paracelsus and Agrippa makes me think of an Umberto Eco novel. That probably does not move this conversation forward...but I love Eco. That is all.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X