Magick: Question on Theory

iamonarch

New Member
Messages
18
--Science, or to be more specific fields such as anthropology and psychology, purpose magick to be in essence little more than dramatic elements of religious systems within their respective cultures. As cultures developed, religions arose as a means of (among other things) social order and, by virtue of such order, imaginative explorations of the internal human experience as well as the nature of external reality. By this reasoning, most of the things found within religious systems can be understood as means by which the participates of such systems explored concepts such as emotions, as seen with the Greco-Roman association of deities with emotive human characteristics (i.e. Lyssa as personified Rage, Eros as Love, etc.), or otherwise sought answers to questions regarding nature, as with the pillars of salt surrounding the Dead Sea in modern Israel/Jordan and Lot's wife. In essence, most specialists view religion as little more than stories told to help people better understand themselves and the world, as well as how to act accordingly.
--The various systems of magick we see arise within these broader religious systems, therefore, are in that view little more than "fancy (read: imaginative nonsense)" that derived as a means of affecting one's self or others/the world based on what said religions presented as the reality of existence. All of that is simply to say that magick systems in "pagan" Scandinavian religions/traditions, e.g. Norse, were used by believers to produce desired affects within what they understood to be reality, all by using--and this is key--the figures and motifs unique to their perspective, e.g. Odin, runes, etc.
--The purpose of the above preamble is to demonstrate the position of modern academics in relation to history's varied magick systems: It's people doing odd things based on their beliefs, but just like their beliefs none of it is real or does anything at all.
--Considering what the Age of Exploration taught us about the reality of Earth's numerous and notably unique religions, as well as what the Enlightenment taught us about the nature religions in general, it's not surprising that the modern academic view should be as it is. After all, how could the God of Abraham be the creator of the universe if the Mayan people were over here the entire time worshiping mythical feathered serpents without any knowledge whatsoever about this "Jesus" guy? In other words, Christian Europeans couldn't possibly have known how many different cultures throughout the world held long established beliefs completely outside and incompatible with their own. The doubt this may or may not have caused within them (and it may not have been much as we known most of them just labeled the indigenous people's of the "New World" heretical savages entirely overwhelmed form the bottom up by demonic influences) was as we know multiplied tenfold when data from newly established "scientific disciplines" started to form a picture of mankind, nature, and the universe that was just as incompatible with their traditional religious beliefs systems as the beliefs of the indigenous peoples. To summarize, the modern view of religions as fanciful delusions is hardly unreasonable in light of all the evidence supporting a picture of the world in no way expressed by any religious system, let alone the favored system of European Christians.
--(There is a question in here, I swear)
--So then...What one has to contend with when attempting to develop a functional magicakal theory--and this is necessary before anyone even begins to talk about doing anything "magickal" whatsoever--is all the information about the world that various scientific disciplines have uncovered in recent centuries as well as all the differing views on the world held by countless radically different cultures throughout history. One probably realizes almost immediately that it's beyond naive to think merely "picking one (a magick theory)" and just going with whatever it says is going to work in any way whatsoever. The real challenge of magick would not, therefore, be its execution (meaning questions about "What spells work best?" and "How do I contact this/that?" are essentially futile), but it's conception.
--In short, I feel that what the modern world has failed to produce is a comprehensive magick theory that incorporates all the vast knowledge we now possess--and which is available to nearly everyone thanks to the internet--on not only the nature of reality but also the nature of the multitudinous systems that came before.
--Thus, my question is:
--"How have the people here engaged with the creation of a working magick theory and what are some of the core principles which govern its conception and subsequent experimentation/execution?
 

Top