5 ms·

Exactly. All of magic is like that and has never really been mysterious... the people actually practicing it have mostly always understood that it was psycholog

by _yb2s 2y ago

Exactly. All of magic is like that and has never really been mysterious... the people actually practicing it have mostly always understood that it was psychological hacks: that people are mostly holding themselves back from what they want, one just needs to align their unconscious desires with their will, and it will happen. (in)famous occultist Aleister Crowley was asked if magic is "real" e.g. can you actually do physical things like light a fire with your mind. His answer was basically that he didn't care or it doesn't matter- because the magic that aligns your unconscious with your conscious will is more powerful than people even imagine that type of magic would be. "Magic" in its various forms is alive and well, and is actually widely used (although often on the down low) by creative types to create things that far exceed what confused/ignorant lay people historically imagined magic to be capable of.

im3w1l 2y ago
> (in)famous occultist Aleister Crowley was asked if magic is "real" e.g. can you actually do physical things like light a fire with your mind. His answer was basically that he didn't care or it doesn't matter- Aligning the conscious with the subconscious is surely powerful, but this dismissal seems more like sour grapes tbh.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Perhaps, but Crowley actually claimed to be capable of that type of physical magic, and still dismissed it. I’m not sure what to make of that- he was brilliant but probably both crazy and dishonest.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    > I’m not sure what to make of that Easy. Crowley was a grifter taking advantage of credulous people for his own ends. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      Grifter is uncharitable for someone that is dealing with esoteric things relating to the unconscious where words fail, and who openly admits that what he says isn't intended to be taken as literal truth- I mean he even titled his books things like "the book of lies." His intended audience is too intelligent to be easily "grifted" or to take him literally. In the words of Garek (Deep Space Nine): Doctor: What I want to know, out of all of the stories you've told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't? Garek: My dear doctor, they're all true. Doctor: Even the lies? Garek: Especially the lies. Source: https://youtu.be/4n8j6z8fQ_c?feature=shared https://youtu.be/4n8j6z8fQ_c?feature=shared
markovs_gun 2y ago
Aleister Crowley's conception of magic is much more modern than the forms of occultism discussed in this article though. He was a modern man living in a modern world, influenced by modern philosophy. If you had asked someone in the 1500s that question, they would have said yes and thought you were an idiot for asking about it.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I disagree - I think more intelligent people have always had a more nuanced view of things like religion and magic, but it wasn’t accepted to talk openly about it. You don’t need science or modern philosophy to be curious and critical of what you hear. Marcus Aurelius touched on this in his private journal ~2k years ago, and it was clear that he understood magic and religion as useful metaphors.
  - mionhe 2y ago
    Agreed. Interestingly, my understanding is that it was quiet-ishly passed on by monks and clergy through the middle ages. See John of Morigny on Wikipedia as an example.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      Interesting example, I hadn't heard of Morigny, and will look at his book. I think one reason these things are 'mystical' and 'mysterious' is because the people that understood them did openly talk about them and write about them, but used literary and speaking techniques that give them plausible deniability, and mostly limit the audience to people intelligent enough to decipher them. William Blake is a great example of this- he was writing about ideas so progressive and ahead of their time, many are still today unacceptable to talk about, yet he was able to publish book after book about them in the late 1700s, and was regarded as kooky, rather than dangerous.
      - ryandv 2y ago
        This idea was discussed in "On the Practice of Esotericism," 1992. https://doi.org/10.2307/2709872 https://doi.org/10.2307/2709872
ryandv 2y ago
> it was psychological hacks: that people are mostly holding themselves back from what they want, one just needs to align their unconscious desires with their will, and it will happen. This is the correct understanding of magick, at least as formulated by Crowley and other western esotericists such as the Hermeticists. "As above, so below" and the principle of correspondence refer to the way in which our inner psychological worlds correspond to the external world without. To the degree that we are able to transform our inner psychological world and the ways in which we perceive reality [0], we are able to at least modify our own subjective take on the world, which influences our behaviour and the actions we (are willing to) take or don't take in the objective, outer sphere, and thus, as a downstream consequence, modifies the external world without. Crucially, this modification of one's internal state can be done through sheer application of will alone, and so in a similar fashion as one can invent entire software systems, logical structures, and psychotechnologies [1] through nothing other than the operation of one's mind, one can rewire aspects of their own subjective, psychological reality, and thus minutely affect the real world without. The conjuring of firebolts and magic missiles are to be regarded as "stage magic" or prestidigitation, not the psychological/spiritual practice that produces inner transformation and mastery of the self (magick). Religion, spirituality, and mysticism are studies of the mind/soul (synonyms for the exact same thing, that which beholds the unconscious, intellectual, emotional, and other aspects of reality not having to do with meatspace), not cheap conjuring tricks or metaphysical assertions about bearded men in the sky or "energies" pervading the universe. [0] As a modern, practical, worked example see the "Practices" in Igor Kusakov's Psychonetics which can be tried right now, in your browser: https://web.archive.org/web/20160520233250/http://deconcentration-of-attention.com/psychonetics.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160520233250/http://deconcentr... [1] https://www.meaningcrisis.co/episode-1-introduction/ https://www.meaningcrisis.co/episode-1-introduction/
- mistrial9 2y ago
  well said but lacking? > modification of one's internal state can be done through there is an old theology question.. can enlightenment/grace/salvation come through individual will and effort? purifications? a certain diet? the right books? extend that to all manner of transformations .. is it really the sole power of an individual human that can effect such changes? How does a human live, eat, exist each day.. not alone really.. similarly in the unseen realms.. Those who have strong will tend to see the case for individual efforts.
simiones 2y ago
There are plenty of people "practicing magic" even today that are fully convinced they are producing physical results through non-physical means. I would bet anything that there has always been a mix of both of these types of people, plus a huge array of charlatans.

by _yb2s 2y ago

im3w1l 2y ago

> (in)famous occultist Aleister Crowley was asked if magic is "real" e.g. can you actually do physical things like light a fire with your mind. His answer was basically that he didn't care or it doesn't matter- Aligning the conscious with the subconscious is surely powerful, but this dismissal seems more like sour grapes tbh.

_yb2s 2y ago
Perhaps, but Crowley actually claimed to be capable of that type of physical magic, and still dismissed it. I’m not sure what to make of that- he was brilliant but probably both crazy and dishonest.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  > I’m not sure what to make of that Easy. Crowley was a grifter taking advantage of credulous people for his own ends. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Grifter is uncharitable for someone that is dealing with esoteric things relating to the unconscious where words fail, and who openly admits that what he says isn't intended to be taken as literal truth- I mean he even titled his books things like "the book of lies." His intended audience is too intelligent to be easily "grifted" or to take him literally. In the words of Garek (Deep Space Nine): Doctor: What I want to know, out of all of the stories you've told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't? Garek: My dear doctor, they're all true. Doctor: Even the lies? Garek: Especially the lies. Source: https://youtu.be/4n8j6z8fQ_c?feature=shared https://youtu.be/4n8j6z8fQ_c?feature=shared

markovs_gun 2y ago

Aleister Crowley's conception of magic is much more modern than the forms of occultism discussed in this article though. He was a modern man living in a modern world, influenced by modern philosophy. If you had asked someone in the 1500s that question, they would have said yes and thought you were an idiot for asking about it.

_yb2s 2y ago
I disagree - I think more intelligent people have always had a more nuanced view of things like religion and magic, but it wasn’t accepted to talk openly about it. You don’t need science or modern philosophy to be curious and critical of what you hear. Marcus Aurelius touched on this in his private journal ~2k years ago, and it was clear that he understood magic and religion as useful metaphors.
- mionhe 2y ago
  Agreed. Interestingly, my understanding is that it was quiet-ishly passed on by monks and clergy through the middle ages. See John of Morigny on Wikipedia as an example.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Interesting example, I hadn't heard of Morigny, and will look at his book. I think one reason these things are 'mystical' and 'mysterious' is because the people that understood them did openly talk about them and write about them, but used literary and speaking techniques that give them plausible deniability, and mostly limit the audience to people intelligent enough to decipher them. William Blake is a great example of this- he was writing about ideas so progressive and ahead of their time, many are still today unacceptable to talk about, yet he was able to publish book after book about them in the late 1700s, and was regarded as kooky, rather than dangerous.
    - ryandv 2y ago
      This idea was discussed in "On the Practice of Esotericism," 1992. https://doi.org/10.2307/2709872 https://doi.org/10.2307/2709872

ryandv 2y ago

> it was psychological hacks: that people are mostly holding themselves back from what they want, one just needs to align their unconscious desires with their will, and it will happen. This is the correct understanding of magick, at least as formulated by Crowley and other western esotericists such as the Hermeticists. "As above, so below" and the principle of correspondence refer to the way in which our inner psychological worlds correspond to the external world without. To the degree that we are able to transform our inner psychological world and the ways in which we perceive reality [0], we are able to at least modify our own subjective take on the world, which influences our behaviour and the actions we (are willing to) take or don't take in the objective, outer sphere, and thus, as a downstream consequence, modifies the external world without. Crucially, this modification of one's internal state can be done through sheer application of will alone, and so in a similar fashion as one can invent entire software systems, logical structures, and psychotechnologies [1] through nothing other than the operation of one's mind, one can rewire aspects of their own subjective, psychological reality, and thus minutely affect the real world without. The conjuring of firebolts and magic missiles are to be regarded as "stage magic" or prestidigitation, not the psychological/spiritual practice that produces inner transformation and mastery of the self (magick). Religion, spirituality, and mysticism are studies of the mind/soul (synonyms for the exact same thing, that which beholds the unconscious, intellectual, emotional, and other aspects of reality not having to do with meatspace), not cheap conjuring tricks or metaphysical assertions about bearded men in the sky or "energies" pervading the universe. [0] As a modern, practical, worked example see the "Practices" in Igor Kusakov's Psychonetics which can be tried right now, in your browser: https://web.archive.org/web/20160520233250/http://deconcentration-of-attention.com/psychonetics.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160520233250/http://deconcentr... [1] https://www.meaningcrisis.co/episode-1-introduction/ https://www.meaningcrisis.co/episode-1-introduction/

mistrial9 2y ago
well said but lacking? > modification of one's internal state can be done through there is an old theology question.. can enlightenment/grace/salvation come through individual will and effort? purifications? a certain diet? the right books? extend that to all manner of transformations .. is it really the sole power of an individual human that can effect such changes? How does a human live, eat, exist each day.. not alone really.. similarly in the unseen realms.. Those who have strong will tend to see the case for individual efforts.

simiones 2y ago

There are plenty of people "practicing magic" even today that are fully convinced they are producing physical results through non-physical means. I would bet anything that there has always been a mix of both of these types of people, plus a huge array of charlatans.