what is magick

[JamesByrne]

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.

[Gallifrey]

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.

[Just_Wondering]

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.

[Gallifrey]

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.

[Witcher]

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.

[xxx200]

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.

why don't you think paracelsus and agrippa is not good for magick? besides magick is a 100% mind thing. what do you mean by that? do you want to say that by applying mind you can do wonderful things like you can see future or you can become something else etc. i don't think so.

if you're right then anybody and everyone can have the same magickal faculty since everyone has a mind. but none have those magical powers.

[orchestrion]

if you're right then anybody and everyone can have the same magickal faculty since everyone has a mind.

That's not true at all.
That's like saying everyone has the same level of intelligence or the same level of eloquence because we all have minds.

[Tylluan Penry]

Myths are not always constant in what they tell nor how they tell it. THey are fluid, and in that respect one could argue that Shakespeare, Homer etc are just part of the myth.

Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BCE claimed that Homer and Hesiod “gave to the gods their titles and clarified their provinces’ (The Histories, II.53)**. This suggests there had once been a deliberate literary attempt to refine a pre-existing cosmosology from earlier oral sources. Personally, I think Shakespeare contains a great deal of useful information in his writings (especially perhaps in the Tempest) but he has to be read correctly.

With regard to magic (sorry, can't bring myself to add that final 'k') I believe we all have magical abilities. These will vary according to temperament, circumstances, even heredity. Not everyone chooses to develop them. Of those that do, they may head off in a different direction.

It's a bit like singing... I've never yet met anyone I couldn't teach to carry a tune. But what they sing, and how they sing it.... ah, that's a different matter entirely.


** Not sure what your personal view of Herodotus may be. He has been called 'The Father of History' but also 'THe Father of Lies'.

[xxx200]

Myths are not always constant in what they tell nor how they tell it. THey are fluid, and in that respect one could argue that Shakespeare, Homer etc are just part of the myth.

my point in using shakespeare or homar is that they might have heard about magick i mentioned here. in fact pliny the elder in his natural history wrote many of magickal powers of natural things like herbs, stones etc. not everybody is talking myth. actually i want to support my view of magic with writings of those eminent people.

With regard to magic (sorry, can't bring myself to add that final 'k') I believe we all have magical abilities. These will vary according to temperament, circumstances, even heredity. Not everyone chooses to develop them. Of those that do, they may head off in a different direction.

exactly what kind of magickal power do everyone has? can you name those power? besides if everyone has magical powers then these powers can be seen in those people who develops them. can you give me an example of such kind of people with magical power?




** Not sure what your personal view of Herodotus may be. He has been called 'The Father of History' but also 'THe Father of Lies'. ;

- - - Updated - - -

natural element like herbs and stones show their magickal power under some planetory influences. some show their power without planetory influences. pliny the elder wrote about them in his book natural history.

for example: loadstone has attractive power that can be seen at any time. sun flower blooms when the sun rises( planetory influence)

there is a thing called attraction or sympathy. things get attracted to each other. our sun flower got attracted to sun. evening primrose blooms at evening. this is also a useful part of magickal art.

[Celtic Tiger]

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.

You are assuming an awful lot considering that when you posted this, nobody had responded yet.

This is my first view of this topic, but lack of response is not always lack of interest. I see a lot of topics here and read through them but do not always respond; they may interest me, but I may not feel that I have anything relevant to contribute or I may not have the time to respond in the fashion that I would like, and so come back to it later.

Sometimes, I post a lot and contribute to the degree that I am able. Other times, I have no time for web discussion. Being a single dad with full custody of my kids kind of has that effect. I'm sure that other people here have circumstances in their lives that similarly intrude into their time for web discussions.

In short, don't take it personally.

In any case, it looks like discussion is proceeding apace. Sometimes, a thread just needs a little jump start.

- - - Updated - - -

my thread will begin with the question: what is magick? this is the main question which i will try to answer in this thread.

Putting aside differences in spelling, magic is a catch all term that includes stage magic and illusion, fortune telling, religious ceremony, alchemy, spell craft, astral projection, contacting other planes, binding or calling upon spirits, faerie folk, and all manner of whimsey.

No offense, but I never cared for MacBeth, so I will leave that to others to discuss.