JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives


ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives


ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Home

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Home

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC  October 2011

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC October 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Interpreting the Results of Magic

From:

nagasiva yronwode <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Society for The Academic Study of Magic <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:52:56 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

David Mattichak:
> Interpreting the results of magick is always subjective.

I think the situation is far more complex than this. The first bit of objective data we have is the overall (if stated) intention of the magical action/materia being employed. My understanding (perhaps erroneous) is that conventionally there is a symbolic language engaged to effect the result, likewise, and if nothing else we should be able to distinguish between the initial stated interest in result and the later explanation (even if it changed) for how it "worked". I am not saying that practitioners won't shift (drift) in this interpretation, but we can objectively analyze this by recording any reflections on the spells or rites initiated and concluded. The intentionality of the effects is a primary factor in the phenomena as I understand it.

> In Magick in Theory and Practice Crowley says:
> } I have noticed that the effect of a Magical Work has followed it so closely
> } that it must have been started before the time of the Work. E.g. I work to-night to
> } make X in Paris write to me. I get the letter the next morning, so that it must have
> } been written before the Work.

Granted that Crowley was of reliable report (of which I am suspicious), and granted that such an event took place (without his having been tipped off as to a more than hypothetical arriving letter, and forgotten about it) as he's described, there are other possibilities than his conclusions. One of these is that in such an event the person who engages the rite to 'make a thing happen' may be connected to the event in question (intuitively or by some other skill or percept) and 'behaving along with the result' so as to give the impression (perhaps even to the spellcaster) of having caused it. Without the observation of the actual causal leverage, there is no rational conclusion to be made, and all the options should be considered by those making an evaluation of the data.

> } Does this deny that the Work caused the effect? That seems to imply that the sequence of events in a magickal operation might put the result
> } before the operation.

Does this *support* the conclusion that the spell caused the effect? I do not think that it is wise to conclude this. Leave it unknown and note the relation, a remarkable coincidence. Observe *several* such remarkable coincidences and let's talk about the resemblances amongst them. Crowley himself wrote similarly of successive billiards-shots as compared to flukes.

> I think that this is one of the fundamental reasons that magcik is so hard to quantify for study.

My impression is that the tendency to combat or conflate magic and science, causes and effects, gets in the way of simply observing and properly recording the data of the events themselves. Too many intrusions from presupposition and hopeful or critical bias are operating. The more people we can get looking at it, the less emphasis and stigma will become attached to the results of the studies. Where the effects are more blatantly unusual and more apparently supernatural, those more studied in illusion and legerdemain will need become involved in observation.

> Crowley, again, puts it like this:
> } ...there is a real apodeictic correlation between the
> } various elements of the operation, such as the formal manifestation of the spirit,
> } his name and sigil, the form of the temple, weapons, gestures and incantations.
> } These facts prevent one from suspecting the real subtlety involved in the
> } hypothesis.

Once one becomes familiar with the rudiments, the equipment, and the suppositions apparent within any specific magical system, I cannot see why knowing about the various elements ought to prevent one from understanding either the subtleties or the blatantly obvious hypotheses which may be involved. The most important element is to conceive of as many possibilities within one's cosmological framework as would make sense to those who will find the study of value. Ignoring them is half the problem of studies of magic. Too many questions go unasked, too little observation reported in enthusiasm of 'knowing' what is happening. I'm happy to see that this (along with attitudes toward the studies) is changing through time for the better.

> This is so profound that it seems almost true to say that even the
> crudest Magick eludes consciousness altogether, so that when one is able to do it,
> one does it without conscious comprehension, very much as one makes a good
> stroke at cricket or billiards. One cannot give an intellectual explanation of the
> rough working involved, as one can explain the steps in the solution of a quadratic
> equation. In other words Magick in this sense is rather an art than a science.

There are sciences of arts. That a thing is an art should never prevent our ability to connect (even over duration) excellence of performance and result. The main difficulty is the intrusion upon reflection of the performance for scientific sake, and in this Crowley has an important point (disruption for purpose of learning about the art may make more difficult the proper observation of its most adept performances; this is why we ought to try to identify those skilled in said performance and focus on them).

Jesper Petersen wrote: 
> This is Crowley’s position, and it is obviously shared by many in the esoteric milieu more generally. Nevertheless, if we should respect this position in full, we couldn’t and shouldn’t analyse “magick” outside this subjectivist frame. In my opinion, this is much more problematic than any animosity resulting from publishing such a study. Sam quoted Lincoln’s theses; I am tempted to quote the fifth one:
>  
> «Reverence is a religious, and not a scholarly virtue. When good manners and good conscience cannot be reconciled, the demands of the latter ought to prevail.»
>  
> Of course, this does not mean that we have to be insulting, just play friends with informants, or cannot do research in dialogue with them. Information gathering has to be engaged and empathetic; we can even become friends. But to limit our research because of limits set up by those we study is to extend this phase into research as a whole. Reverence has to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, we won’t be able to offer anything outside the frame we already have.

Agreed. Science has already been stymied enough by patients' rights issues in association to publicity surrounding novel theories (e.g. Multiple Personality Disorder, Recovered Memory Syndrome) with such egregious repercussions that we will not wish to potentially sully the outcome by a hamstringing requirement that we be a convert in order to observe (though I have no objections to converts issuing observations).
 
> ...I have rarely met any informants who weren’t at least surprised by academic findings, terminology or hypotheses. If they were not, perhaps we have just reproduced their own self-image?

It seems important to me that we keep an eye on for whom the research is being conducted (i.e. what audience) and what it is that the relevant peers may say in evaluation about the substance of those findings, moreso than complaints from informants about a researcher's *academic* slant to their study and its results. Sure, manners and being pleasant are valuable, as is informant confidentiality where it is necessary. A variety of slants to investigation are bound to be more important over time, however, than an ability to satisfy those whom one seeks to observe and explain.

One of the things that I've enjoyed about Susan Greenwood that I hope to see more of was that she provided a brief evaluation of previous anthropologists, investigators, and their attitudes and preconceptions about magic which they brought to their study, how it affected their results, and what it enabled them to disclose to future researchers. When I compare it to ethnography or cultural anthropology of less stigmatized areas of human behaviour (e.g. music), it is precisely this type of broad-sweeping discussion that I enjoy and from which I learn the most. 

nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director 
  YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
                               ----------------------------------------------------- 
  *Yronwode Institution for the Preservation and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
                              ----------------------------------------------------- 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
April 2023
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
August 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
January 2020
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager