talkmagic.co.uk

I was recently taken up in a discussion over this with a lesser informed friend of mine. It seems to some the differences aren’t made so clear between illusion and the practice of magick. I don’t claim that magick influences my magical style or perspectives, because I still take the stance as skeptic in almost every religious or esoteric field.

But I am wondering, does the study of magick influence any of you in the magic community? I might could see how sleight of hand could be made out to be symbolic of many magick theorems.

Because as Crowley’s very straightforward definition of magick states:

“Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will.”

Other than creating an atmosphere or perhaps storyline for bizarre magic acts, does anyone find any connection between sleight of hand and what other might label “real magick”? Or how about this, are you completely resistant to any tag of having an arcane knowledge?

Rant time!

I'd say:

Magick:
Rituals that don't work for people who think they do

Magic:
Rituals that do work for people who think they don't

Submit or add the word 'Entertainment' into your equation, and I think the discussion ends?!?!

entertainment vs. magick

maybe a vote?

how bout not!

Long ago I affirmed and visualized a single "dream" if you would; to be a modern-day Wizard who had knowledge and insight along side skill and ability around both, the theatrical and more metaphysical aspects of Magic. In my mind to be a "real Wizard" one had to know both in order to understand the greater "truth" of it all.

Today I am seen by many as one of the more versed and knowledgeable people in both, the craft as well as this thespian aspect there of. I have my letters of merit, as it were, on either side of this particular fence; degrees as a theologian and historian as well as accolade and accomplishment as a showman which have laying deep beneath said veneer, the scars of an investigator and "paladin" -- one that has used his knowledge of both in "silent" manner, so as to rid society of those who seem more predatory of inclination, than subservient to spirit.

With all that said I believe the real issue, at least in regards to this question, is that learning to balance the two and our perspectives are paramount. Too, as individuals, we must solidify our own definition of things as it applies to us and our personal perspectives and philosophy in life, realizing that none of it need be carved so deeply into stone as to limit us and our potential -- our obligation -- to grow and "evolve" but at the same time, rooting those points of view in a way that allow us to invoke them as we create.

My personal involvement within the more esoteric avenues of things lends to me and my character certain "allusions" via which I am able to add to the idea of who and what I am as a Psychic Entertainer. Everything from my past as allowed me to build on the image I am now viewed as being on both, the theatrical and more personal or spiritual side of things. This is generally a true perception and at the same time, because of the personal ideas and understandings of others, some will add to or take from that character, as they require. Tomo for an example, probably sees me more as a "charlatan" for many reasons than someone like John Riggs or Richard Webster would view me yet both sources are translating the same available information on and around me.

When it comes to the material I would present or create for a performance; well of course my idea as to who and what I am comes into play. In some cases, such as my PSYCHIC HOT-LINE routine, I'm deliberately striving to deliver the kind of hard hitting bit that feels 100% real, just to show to the public how much can be done that looks "real" but is 100% fake. It's not an "expose" act, but we do tell them after the fact that everything they just experienced was a trick. It is an approach that is far more kind than bludgeoning folks with fowl language and calling them idiots, as many in today's world seem to believe to be more appropriate vs. lending a modicum of respect to their patrons and that more private side of one's living.

In other words... it's not our job to preach but we can share ideas and lend inspiration through our performance. We can take a theme directly from Crowley if you dare, and sew it into our act (I have and do). But we must likewise understand, especially if we are looking at this craft as something vocational; that what we like or want to do isn't always practical or "viable" when dealing with the public. We must be careful in our approach and in just how many "seeds" we scatter.

Jay Scott Berry in his shows from the 80s, deliberately revealed images of the Tarot and conveyed the idea of true wizardry... he was not alone in this, examples can be seen in the work of Jeff McBride, Eugene Burger and the late Stephan Minch just to name a few. Then again there are those of the ICBM (Inner Circle of Bizarre Magick) and the Shadow Network that specialize in this sort of mayhem... Many, such as David Birtwell and Joe Lantarie being consummate students of the esoteric and welders of genuine occult influence both, on and off stage e.g. I'd say you would be safest in finding such groups vs. opening that side of your own life as well as your philosophy in forums of this particular mode.

As to those that do not believe in Magick... the power of creative thought and affirmation... the events mentioned in the opening of this post are things done at ages 10 and 12. IN looking at Christopher's Illustrated History I had pointed at the grand illusions of Thurston and Dante, saying very directly that I'd some day own and do those very same effects... something I've done...

Destiny can be self-fulfilling, but we must turn the energy in some way or, as Hermes stated, "All is Mind, the Mind Creates All"...

Magick is real! We just call it Science now days...

Tomo wrote:Magick:
Rituals that don't work for people who think they do

Magic:
Rituals that do work for people who think they don't

Actually, taking psychological techniques into consideration, I now think it's more accurate to say rituals that don't work for people who think they do versus rituals that tend to work for people who think they don't.

very insightful Craig. Its a topic thats difficult to approach in a forum, much less with the public.

If anything, the implication that such things have an influence on what we do often naturally manifest itself in those people who are already rooted in those beliefs, or ideas. But not very often have I been directly approached with the question (ie. especially with close up magic!) of magick. So its very much useful to read a well versed response.

in response to tomo, well said: short and simple. Realistically, both forms tend to have their own ways of warping perception. Magick simply puts a deeper rip in your mind when it doesnt work, where as magic is up close and personal, and very real in the moment.

I'm not going to get into the validity or whatnot of magick rituals but I will say this: they do make for some absolutely fascinating reading. There's something so beautiful about the ritual, the necessary words and their applications and have influenced how I approach my magic, albeit on a more subtextual approach.

I still stand by what I said at the start of this thread: Entertainment.

If you're a magic performer, generally what you do is for entertainment value.

Many people use magick and witchcraft, and other 'darker' storylines to enhance their magic. But it still boils down to pure entertainment.

There is a massive difference between trick magic and witchcrafty magic.

Trick magic is done to amaze and entertain your spectators, it's done through sleights and trickery. Witchcrafty type magic is done to alter and affect things and is dont through ritual and directing natural energies.

Some people might use a witchcraft type presentation to make the illusion that there is more to what they are doing than simple trickery but that doesn't mean that they're mixing the two. It's still trick magic at the end of the day.

Lady of Mystery wrote:Some people might use a witchcraft type presentation to make the illusion that there is more to what they are doing than simple trickery but that doesn't mean that they're mixing the two. It's still trick magic at the end of the day.

Did anybody say they were?

ummmmmmm.....

I'm sure somebody did

Crowley was full of it as far as im concerned...add an unstable mind with drugs, and well...look what you get...

one of the problems i have with the Crowley legacy, can be summed up by a simple double-standard within the Book of the Law, and Amazon.co.uk...

as soon as any esoteric, underground movement/belief system appears in a nice hardback book available from a mainstream publisher for seven earth pounds...well, it no longer is an esoteric underground movement/belief system as far as im concerned...

plus, it does say in the original manuscripts that the book of the law was transcribed from "do not make copies of this"...

but as for any line between magick/magic - well, even though i use the tarot, i say upfront i do not use any flim-flam, insofar as i have my own spread, i use my own intepretations (all hail reverend lewis!) and i construct a paragraph for their each segment of their past/present/future...im definate, straight forward and happily accept "you are completely wrong"...

no cold reading, no weaseling it round until im correct...

i feel that you can mix both magick/magic in performance, very well if driven by elements of believability, and thought provoking comments...the bizarre/story telling side of things obviously give you plenty of leeway...

but also, it doesnt have to be scarey or dark to be bizarre...there's plenty of positive and healing aspects to be attributed to magick, even something as simple as voodoo in its proper/true sense of a healing/positive magic...but misrepresented by the missionaries to push their own religious beliefs...

back to crowley, the followers, to me, seemed like any other organisation - you get a group of like minded people together, and they all happily accept and believe what they see, because they want to...that goes for NLP seminars and so on too....

funny old world innit...and strange how the mind can play tricks on you, from a simple d-lift, to being drawn into a religious "cult", whether crowleys, or fundamental christianity...

if you think of magic(k) simply as something to defy the mind and eyes... or as something to cause unconventional outcomes.... then maybe in some ways they are one in the same. I dont mean to say that if i do a magic trick i dont know its a trick, but think of this: If magick was common, and people controlled the elements with willpower onstage.... and anyone could learn how to throw fireballs, create spells, and read minds.... then wouldnt the public say the same thing "Oh, he's just using this technique, or that one, to do these feats...". I feel that if magick was something more widely practiced, it would be treated just like magic.

If one thinks of it this way, what exactly is "illusion", or "trick".

After all if you make something appear out of thin air, you are still doing just that, whether you use a magic trick or some magick spell... the people who see it still see the same effect.

I hope im explaining my point clearly