From: Tyagi@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva) Subject: Re: Magickal definition (FAQ) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 12:30:50 PST (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( FAQ Question #1 (What is magicK?) (Version 1.2) I'm new to this group, and I'm now wondering what the difference between MAGIC and MAGICK is. Is it white and black magic or what?? )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) My response (if you respond too I may integrate yours with mine, and I will repost this every time this question arises in the group): A) Magic is prestidigitation, showmanship and is described quite well by those in the newsgroup 'alt.magic' (without the 'k'). B) MagicK has been defined by many people in many different ways. There is no universally agreed definition, so it is best approached obliquely or en masse. One popular mage defined it as 'the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in comformity with Will.' (Aleister Crowley) Some see magick as a kind of energy which pervades the cosmos. Some see it as a psychic tool by which one may influence the material world through the use of symbols and ritual. Some see it as a means of coming to unite with the divine, some see it as simply a way to exercise will or Will. Many have posited the differentiation of magical 'currents' or 'energies' based on style and/or intent. Some describe that which intends harm as 'black magic(k)', yet there is no consensus among mages by any means. Whatever magick is, this is the subject of the alt.magick newsgroup. For that reason it is best left undefined and will constantly be discussed using its various definitions. -------- Crowley is often given credit for applying the kteisic 'k', yet, as Robert Mathiesen writes: All these English words derived from Latin words in -ic- or Greek words in -ik- were commonly spelled -ick- in English, when the pronunciation had the "k" sound, well into the late 1700's; but were spelled -ic- in English when the pronuncia- tion changes to an "s" or "sh" sound. Thus: magick, magicks, magickally; and if we had a verb "to magick," its forms would be magicking and magicked. However, only magician, never "magickian," because the pronunciation in this word is not "k", but "sh" (for Americans) or "s" (for some English). After about 1800, people started dropping the "k" except when a vowel "e" "i" or "y" immediately followed.... If you want a good example of an English text with the "k" still used as I have described, take a look at the first edition of the English translation of Agrippa's _Three Books of Occult Philosophy_ (1651), available in your nearest high-level rare book library if you're lucky. So Crowley just revived an archaic spelling for his own purposes. He, however, being rather well-educated, never blundered into spellings like 'magickian" (gaack)! Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM ____________________________________________________ Symonds and Grant, in their introduction to _Magick_ (_Book Four_, Parts I/II/III), write: "The Anglo-Saxon *k* in Magick, like most of Crowley's conceits, is a means of indicating the kind of magic which he performed. K is the eleventh letter of several alphabets, and eleven is the principal number of magick, because it is the number attributed to the Qliphoth - the underworld of demonic and chaotic forces that have to be conquered before magick can be performed. K has other magical implications: it corresponds to the power or *shakti* aspect of creative energy, for k is the ancient Egyptian *khu*, *the* magical power. Specifically, it stands for *kteis* (vagina), the complement to the wand (or phallus) which is used by the Magician in certain aspects of the Great Work." Page xvi. ___________________________________ I'll note that K is also the beginning letter of the Great Mother Goddess Kali, and that Grant and many other magicians of this Aeon/Age/Era have quite an affinity for Her (myself included). This says what the editors of this book thought about Crowley's revision, but it does not really quote him, so I cannot be sure of its accuracy. Tyagi Nagasiva, Keeper of the Kreeping FAQ Tyagi@HousEofKAos.AByss.com (THE KA'AB) ------------------------------------------ Better is this paragraph by Tim Maroney (I'd still like the answer to this one - anyone game to figure it?): I can't believe people are =still= saying that Crowley spelled "magick" with a "k" to distinguish it from stage magic. Hasn't anyone read MAGICK IN THEORY AND PRACTICE, surely the most widely reprinted of his books? He used the new spelling to distinguish his system from everyone else's Golden Dawn magic, which he thought had given the whole enterprise a bad name through its various idiocies. This deliberately archaic spelling had diddly-squat to do with stage magic, and everything to do with Crowley's hatred of his contemporary competitors. -- Tim Maroney, Communications and User Interface Engineer {apple!sun}!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com ++++++__________________+++++++++++___________+++++++++++++++++++ And then there's RMR (Richard Romanowski): Crowley was a singularly unskilled magician and a singularly skilled prose stylist. Nowadays, singularly unskilled occultists who are *also* singularly unskilled prose stylists worsen their prose skills by spelling 'magic' with a 'k', simply because it's trendy and their atrophied souls cannot do anything that is not embraced by the herd-mind. It is possible that some skilled occultists might mis-spell in this fashion as a tribute to Crowley, and it is likewise possible, and just as likely, that heroin can be responsibly used to counteract headaches. Crowley himself began spelling 'magic' with a 'k' because he was under the mistaken impression that occultism is something different from stage-conjuring. In fact, this is not true. Occultism is a pathetic circle of deluded seekers for truth in a universe without truth; this enterprise is governed by elect circles of illuminati, who, not unlike religious cult leaders, manipulate their weak-willed prey with hopes, dreams, and similar foolishness. Anyone wishing to have the truly fallacious nature of magic -- i.e. occultism -- explained to them can receive much instruction on alt.magick, but it is to be remembered that many of the posters there have ironic senses of humor, and mean the opposite of what they appear to be posting... LVX rmr ================================================================ Some people think of magick in terms of 'laws', like Tim here, who quotes some Whitcomb: Well, I thought that this might apply to the current thread, it is found in the Axioms section of _The Magician's Companion_, by Bill Whitcomb, which reads as follows: The Law of Labeling: ____________________ When you label something, you exclude information about it. This is because the thing becomes obscured by other information stored under the label for the thing. If i were to say, "I study magic," this would immediately bring up all the associations and stored data under the label "magic." Some people would believe I am a stage magician; some people would think I am a satanist, while still others would decide that I study magic as a historian. Yet none of these things actually has anything to with what iwould mean by the word "magic." When you symbolize something, you impose the deep structure of the symbol system used on the way you pereive the thing symbolized. There is a japanese proverb which relates that to confusing the Moon finger pointing to the Moon. People tend to believe that they understand something when they have a name for it. This is called nominalization. It enables people to take very ill-defined concepts and continuing processes and talk about them as if they were concrete things. The problem is that frequently even the users of these terms (names) do not know what they mean. Nominalization is an important tool but we must realize when we are using it. The Law of Information Packing: _______________________________ The more information contained in a symbol, the more general (vague) it becomes. The more specific a symbol system is, the more information it excludes. I dont know if this helps, but to me it demostrates that definitions are important for communication, but a balance must be struck between defining something, and limiting something with the said definition. Tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- Readings on general magick and its history: [Please post your additions and corrections to this reading list in this thread, thanks.] General _Magick_, by Aleister Crowley ('Book Four', Parts I/II/III), edited by Symonds and Grant, Arkana Books, 1989. _Magick Without Tears_, by Aleister Crowley, edited by Israel Regardie, Falcon Press(?), 1989 (There may be a newer edition). _Real Magic_, by Isaac Bonewits, Samuel Weiser, 1989. _Magic: Its Ritual, Power and Purpose_, by W.E. Butler, Aquarian Press, 1975. _Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Rituals_, by Eliphas Levi, Samuel Weiser, 1970. _Magic, Science and Religion_, by Bronislow Malinowski, Doubleday, 1964. _The Magical Philosophy_, Denning and Phillips, Llewellyn, 1974. History _The History of Magic_, by Eliphas Levi, Samuel Weiser, 1988. _The Black Arts_, by Richard Cavendish, Putnam, 1968. _Magic: Its History and Principle Rites_, by M. Bouisson, transl. by G. Almayrac, Dutton, 1961. _History of Magic, Witchcraft and Occultism_, by W.B. Crow, Aquarian Press, 1968. For Witchcraft - See the alt.paganFAQ =============================== End of ALT.MAGICK.KREEPING.FAQ#1.2 This is from a series of continually-updated posts responding to recurrent questions in this newsgroup. Please debate anything in here which seems extreme and add your own response to these questions after the post. I'll integrate what I can. Thanks. Tyagi Nagasiva Tyagi@HousEofKAos.AByss.com (THE KA'AB)