Talk:Magick (Thelema)/Archive 2

Please
Some people are so pretentious to think that by adding a letter to a word that will make it more cool and groovy. get a grip all of you. It's Magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.74.7 (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the reason we (the OEC's and the OMC's) spell magick the way it is spelled is to clear up confusion over visitors and other people that are unfamiliar with our meaning, it makes them believe we are refering to stage magic, which we're not. However, some people do spell it that way, as well as "magyk" and "magyck" and others "because it sounds cool", but the main purpose of magick is a distinction, an entirely new word to differentiate two entirely different things.

Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New article in place, ready for editing
Based on a request, the new magick article in now in place. It is certainly incomplete, but I believe it offers a a good template for additions. Although the page history is in place, I have archived the last version here.

I realize that this is a big move. However, I honestly believe that the prior article was poorly constructed and rather hodge podge. If I did not include anything that editors feel strongly about, I of course welcome reintegration. I have no authority here...I'm just being bold. :)

I hope that editors will jump in with both feet in filling out all the empty sections. Let's really make this article shine!! –Frater5 (talk/con) 01:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentece of this article makes no sense whatsoever
"Magick, in the broadest sense, is any act designed to cause intentional change." So tying my shoelaces is magick, now? It is an act, designed to cause intentional change.

I'm not really an expert on this subject, but perhaps "is any supernatural act designed to cause intentional change" would be a more precise definition? I dunno, but the current version is definitely not correct. --Ashenai 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, according to Crowley, any Willed act whatsoever is Magick. He says it quite literally in Book 4: "Every intentional act is a Magical act." He even gives an example for this: "Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magical weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magical language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will." Couldn't be more plain, I think. –Frater5 (talk/con) 15:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In that case, however, the statement needs qualification, or sourcing. It's not NPOV to state that "every intentional act is a Magickal act", because that's not a generally accepted definition in the non-Magickal community. How about something like "According to Aleister Crowley, in the broadest sense, is any act designed to cause intentional change," or something along those lines? --Ashenai 15:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind sourcing it, but the header makes it plain that the entire article is all "according to Crowley". However, I see your point, and perhaps the first sentence could make Crowley's involvement more articulate. –Frater5 (talk/con) 15:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Get Crowley to change his spelling of Magick. He spells it wrong in that quotation above. Flinders 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just spoke with Crowley and he says he regrets the whole k thing now and wishes to apologise to everybody for the confusion he's caused. The quotation above therefore stays as is. ;) Fuzzypeg ☻ 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could he make some kind of public statement? His name is being so misused here in the service of people that have there own agenda. I would like to see it stopped, as previously I had great respect for him, until I started reading these Wikipedia articles invoking his name. Flinders 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fleshing out the article
In case the new article isn't clear, the following three sections are intended to be fleshed out, not just linked: Please consider writing out at least one or two paragraphs for each. Also, an editor took out the empty header for Sex Magick, which also deserves a nice treatment. Thanks! 15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Other magical practices
 * Components of ritual magick
 * Schools of magick


 * There's already an article on sex magic, so it should just be a brief intro and a reference to the main article. This may be true of other sections as well. -999 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for needed topics within the current article...

===Other magical practices===


 * Initiation
 * Magical record
 * magical oath
 * Talismans and sigils
 * Curses
 * Magical Link
 * Magical memory

==Components of ritual magick==


 * Elements and cardinal directions
 * Magical Weapons
 * Temple Components
 * Ritual signs and gestures
 * Vibration
 * Magical formulae

==Schools of magick==


 * Alchemy
 * Enochian magick
 * Goetic magick
 * Chaos magick

–Frater5 (talk/con) 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think Crowley wrote about those in general? Anything can be added, as long as he actually discussed these topics. Zos 01:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See also section
Meanwhile, please stop removing the See also section. I think a good see also section is an improvement to the article. Stop undoing my work, you don't own the  article. -999 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I ask that we restrain that section? Just to begin with, it shouldn't contain links to articles that don't exist.  Jkelly 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -999 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that, while all of this effort is going into this article, it may make sense to look at the associated Categories. They should be a much more efficient way of finding articles on related subjects than a long "See also" list, but they could use some attention.  Jkelly 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

High vs. Low Magick
A discussion of the meaning of High and Low magick should be included, as High Magick redirects here... -999 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See below, Definition of Magick... it seems an ongoing issue here


 * I don't understand why this section is in the article at all, especially since it specifically states itself that Crowley never used the term. I'd like to see that section deleted entirely. Anyone else agree? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The merge
It appears that my edits were not brought over. All of my edits were double cited. And there is only on cited statement in the area in which I edited.

Definition == Crowley defined magick as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." He goes on to elaborate on this, in one postulate, and twenty eight theorems. Postulate and Theorems == His first clarification on the matter is that of a postulate, in which he states "ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object."

I'd like this back in, since it was an actual improvement. Zos 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Improve as thou wilt. -999 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Danke. I will when I finish moving to another state :p Zos 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Magick and the content of Magick article
Since when is Magick owned completely by thelema? The spelling of the word was not created by Crowley, and the Magick I use and teach is neither thelemic, nor is it paranormal, nor is it witchcraft. The information in this article makes it seem as if the term Magick is entirely controlled by Thelema and Crowley. Worse yet, the leading paragraph makes it clear that any non-thelemic "Magick" is relegated to witchcraft, folk magick, and "supernatural" as if all other practicioners of magick are somehow uncivilised or uneducated.

After all, what about Shamans, Druids, and hundreds of other religions, traditions, and paths that use "Magick" that is not paranormal (I.e. it is seen as a part of nature and is therefore "normal") and is not thelemic specifically, yet still uses the archaic spelling for the same reasons crowley did, but not nessecarily because of him?

This is incredibly offensive to me, though I have nothing specifically against Thelema or Crowley, I often refer to this article as it was written for my own students to read where they could find a good, detailed description and definition of Magick, but now it seems they will instead find a good detailed description of Thelema.

Please fix this. Put the thelema information on the thelema page, the crowley information on the Crowley page, and return the old Magick article as it was, because this is certainly not the correct page for a description of Thelema or detailing the works of a single individual (i.e. Crowley).

Thank you. -Arkayne Magii, Myrddin of the Elodrym


 * I agree with Arkayne Magii. This is an encyclopedia not a Thelema web site.  It needs to reflect actual usage not one groups POV. This page should be about the term "magick" in all it's uses.  Certainly Crowley and Thelema should have a prominent place in this.  But the spelling "magick" is used by other people and it is not NPOV to deny that.

The Book of Magick Power by Jason Augustus Newcomb, The Sorcerer's Secrets: Strategies in Practical Magick by Jason Miller, True Magick by Amber K, Instant Magick: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Spellcraft by Christopher Penczak, Advanced Magick for Beginners by Alan Chapman, Visual Magick: a manual of freestyle shamanism by Jan Fries, The Apophenion: a chaos magick paradigm by Peter J. Carroll, Full Contact Magick: A Book of Shadows for the Wiccan Warrior by Kerr Cuhulain, Crafting Magick with Pen and Ink by Susan Moonwriter Pesznecker, Garden Witchery: Magick from the Ground Up by Ellen Dugan, To Stir a Magick Cauldron: A Witch's Guide to Casting and Conjuring by Silver Ravenwolf, Chi Gung: Chinese Healing, Energy and Natural Magick by Lily of the Valley Carnie, AKHKHARU - Vampyre Magick by Michael Ford, Animal Magick by D. J. Conway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheherazahde (talk • contribs) 11:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be looking for Magic (paranormal). If you have a reliable source showing the someone used the "magick" spelling to mean something specific before Crowley did, I'm sure the editors here would be very interested in incorporating that into the article.  Jkelly 05:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with A.M. Please see my comments below —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpehrson (talk • contribs) ("ryanthered")
 * To my knowledge, the spelling "magick" did appear in the work of some earlier English magicians, such as John Dee, but they were simply using the spelling of the time and meant nothing special by it. However by the 19th and 20th centuries that spelling was long obsolete, and it was Crowley alone who re-coined this spelling, giving it a very specific meaning and even giving it a different pronunciation ("mayj-ik"). Its original usage was purely within Thelemic circles, and those who admired Crowley; it gradually started to creep into wider usage through the influential books of Israel Regardie, who had been Crowley's personal secretary. However it still retained that "Crowleyite" flavour. In more recent years (particularly in the last ten or 15), people have started using the term in ignorance of its origins and specific meanings, having been (mis)informed by various sources that "magic" doesn't really mean magic, but only prestidigitation. Don't they remember when they were young, asking if that was "real" magic that the man with the top-hat was doing, and finding out that it wasn't real magic but the illusion of it? We have an article that covers magic in the paranormal sense (note: not "supernatural", since magic is considered by its practitioners to be entirely natural, but "paranormal", outside the normal experiences of most people). We could make this article simply redirect to that one, but that wouldn't do justice to the history and specific meanings of this spelling, a history and meaning which originate with Crowley. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

- First of all, the original paragraph in this article states:

"Magick, in the broadest sense, is any act designed to cause intentional change. [1] The archaic spelling with the terminal "k" was repopularized in the first half of the 20th century by Aleister Crowley when he made it a core component of his mystical system of Thelema."

Second, it comes from the Greek "Magikos" which evolved into the Anglicised version "Magike". "Magikos" which derived from "Magos", was itself derived from Old Persion "Magush". English spelling was not a fixed system for quite some time, and throughout history, spelling changed based on who was writing and how each writer percieved the pronunciation of the word. often word spelling changed many times within the same manuscripts.

for the Etymology of the word Magic, see: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=MAGIC&searchmode=none

The Online Etymological Dictionary, which shows the original Greek spelling.

also, the American Heritage Dictionary page on Magick (http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/M0026050.html) defines Magick as:

An action or effort undertaken because of a personal need to effect change, especially as associated with Wicca or Wiccan beliefs.

and mentions neither Thelema nor Crowley, but DOES mention Wicca.

So again, I request that this be reworked into: Magick, Thelemic and that the original Magick page be put back up for the definition of Magick in general. It feels to me that this is simply a way of claiming dominance of the word "Magick" and attempting to associate it specifically and completely with Thelema and Thelemic tradition, and even in the very first sentance of the article, as I have already mentioned, it says that crowley only popularized an older archaic spelling, a spelling that I might point out was used prior to Crowley by Dee himself in his writings on Enochian Magick from which Crowley borrowed a great deal.

Also, the disclaimer about the topic at the very beginning of the article which reads: "This article refers to the magical system of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. For how this term appears in Wicca and similar Neopagan traditions, see Witchcraft and Folk magic. For a general survey of the topic, see Magic (paranormal). "

As you can see, it states that the srticle refers specifically to Thelema and Crowley, which is the foundation of my point that this should instead be listed under Magick, Thelemic or Magick, Crowley under the broader topic of Magick in general.

Please don't misunderstand me on this, I very much appreciate the information, and I am not arguing the accuracy of the article itself, but I simply believe that putting the Thelemic tradition as the general definition of Magick is wrong and misleading.

And no, I wasn't looking for Magic (paranormal) as you can see in reading my previous post.

- Arkayne Magii, Myrddin of the Elodrym

---

It seems the poster was misunderstood. There are many mages and practictioners who do not view magic as paranormal. It is, a way of life. A major part of daily spiritual practice. Magic with a "k" has come to denote a difference between stage magic and the spiritual belief. The etymology of "magic" includes the Greek word magike and magikos. EtymologyThe Greek origins of the word as well as the new use by Crowley should be included. Crowley popularized the magiCK version. This spelling isn't copyrighted by any one group so I disagree with the article leaning heavily toward the Thelema tradition. "Magick" was used at least as late as 1659 by Friar Roger Bacon Online Publication of the Translated TextThe magick article would be more accurate if the original magick article were restored, perhaps with some of the recently added information. Most of the Thelema information should be in another article with a link under See Also: Thelema Magick


 * We already have a page, Magic (paranormal) which covers general magic, and notes the possible spelling variation of adding a "k" at the end. The association the American Heritage Dictionary is drawing between "magick" and Wicca is presumably based on the huge numbers of poor quality books published in recent years that seem not even to be written by Wiccan initiates. I think most traditional Wiccans use "magic". The modern spelling "magick" stems entirely from the writings of Crowley and his students (and people like Israel Regardie, his one-time secretary). That the word was spelt with a k in the 1600s is kind of beside the point, since that disappeared centuries ago; we can treat it as a new word. (And Crowley intended it as a new word, with a new pronunciation too!) Deriving as it does from Crowley, this spelling is widely seen as connoting thelemic magick amongst the occult community, and when explained, it is normally explained using Crowley's definition.
 * We don't want to have two articles presenting the same information, so lets keep general magic in Magic (paranormal) and thelemic magick in Magick, and have clear explanations in the introduction of each article explaining what the article's scope is and where to look for the other meanings. Fuzzypeg ☻ 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that Magick is a superset term, not limited only to Crowley's works. I believe Crowley would agree. Following are key points on talk page with 999-


 * Magick, according to Crowley, is causing change in accordance to the Will. There are a couple of things that come up immediately for someone who is really into any form of Magick as a way of knowing and being, rather than as a realm of clever argument and fundamentalist belief. First, what is changing? At what level? Second, what is the 'Will' and why is it capitalized? My answer is that change is often change of Consciousness and that Will is the True Will, not the will of the ego personality. Thus, Magick encompasses any system of changing consciousness, which is the essential Thing anyway, and any system of getting in touch with the True Will. That's of course just a start. There are many such systems within the mystic heart of many religious traditions. The community should be careful not to make Crowley and Magick some sort of fundamentalist religion in which clever theologians argue and argue and argue. Magick is not about clever argument ... that's just yuppie ego stuff.


 * Further, Mr. Crowley himself made use of many systems from the East and West in his explorations. The fundamentalist narrowmindedness that seems to be pervasive at present would have prevented Mr. Crowley from Yoga practices such as pranayama, for starters. And we all know how much Crowley recommends pranayama. But maybe that should only be referenced under Yoga?


 * Let us agree not to be fundamentalist on wikipedia but be inclusive of all systems of Magick, not just the (valuable) work of Brother A.C. Make a superset term called Magick, or alternatively, let's eliminate the term Magick entirely and be more specific. ryanthered 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)j


 * I find it unfortunate that so much information pertinent to magic in general has gone into this article: almost as if some people are trying to out-compete the Magic (paranormal) article simply because they prefer this spelling. I agree that this article shouldn't imply that to perform "magick" you have to be a member of any thelemic order or use their methods and rituals, however that does seem to be the current implication.
 * Anyway, Crowley and Thelema are inevitably going to feature strongly here. Your arguments are all phrased in terms of Mr. Crowley's definitions of magic, which is itself revealing. Surely, if the definition of the term comes from Crowley, he and his intentions for the term should feature prominently in the article? Don't forget we have another article dealing with magic in the wider sense. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Your arguments are all phrased in terms of Mr. Crowley's definitions of magic, which is itself revealing." The problem with this statement is that Crowley's definition is so broad as to include every possible action, regardless. So any discussion of magick on any level would have to use crowley's definition. Because of this, the use of a similar definition does not support the idea that the term is explicitly Thelemic or originating with Crowley. I could define the earth as 'Anything that is not sky.' if you talk about dirt, are you using my definition? no.

The broadness with which the statement can be taken does not truly justify it as a 'definition' but merely as a 'statement' or 'description'. The fact that people used magic to create change in accordance with will for millinia prior to Crowley's statement shows that usage of the term with such intent is not in fact invocative of Crowley's 'definition' but merely treating the subject with one possible use of the broader term. Another way to check this is that Crowley's statement applies just as much to 'magic' as it does to 'Magick'. It becomes impossible to speak of magick without using Crowley's 'definition'.

Because of this, I'm really not seeing your point in the above statement. -Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, I'm going to stop arguing and adding negative energy here. However my last statement on the subject is this. Magic (paranormal) is not acceptable to me. I have experience and authority enough but don't feel I should have to elaborate. I have read some of Crowley and I've been into other portions of the Western Mystery Tradition. I like Crowley's definition of Magick, as Change in accordance with the Will, and I see Magick wholistically as the active path up the Tree no matter the outer practices. But NONE of that is about the "Paranormal". I think there is some misunderstanding as to the focus of Magick and it likely comes from people watching too much TV or movies about Witches, etc.
 * I would point out that I am not the only one, judging from the discussion pages, that has been insulted and put off by the dogmatic, fundamentalist, single-minded focus on "Magick=Crowley" here. It doesn't.
 * I think that we have an example here of at least one editor that is hell-bent on making Magick=Crowley. I was told on my talk page that it's best to just dogmatically accept what other editors have done before me, even if I disagree. I feel like I'm back in Church and the Priest has warned me not to think or I'll go to Hell.
 * So instead of contributing to this community, I choose to go THINK elsewhere. It's really not my loss. But it is Wikipedia's loss and the world's loss when users are driven away by those whose egos require them to always be right and their content to be inviolable.-rpehrson 13:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. I don't see my actions here at WP as ego-driven or dogmatic; they are aimed at truth, verifiability, and balanced representation. We work together as a community here, and we have to be willing to participate in discussion and attempt to reach consensus, and also to compromise at times. I have compromised many times in the past and I am ready to do so again with any new debate I enter.
 * It sounds to me like your major complaint is with the naming of the Magic (paranormal) article, which I admit, I too had to think twice about. I resigned myself to it being called "paranormal" because I figured it is at least not a "normal" area of study or awareness, and in the more extreme cases magic really does involve extraordinary events. There's nothing preventing us opening a discussion on a potential name change for the Magic (paranormal) page, and I might well be in support. I wouldn't support going under the "magick" banner, though, because it really does have uncomfortable Crowleyite connotations for myself and many others. Hey, why not just call the article "Magic"?
 * I hope you reconsider leaving WP... Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this part. One of two changes needs to happen, in my opinion. Either removing the (paranormal) label from the Magic(paranormal) article or adding (Thelemic) to the Magick article for continuity. I agree that there are extraordinary aspects to Magic, but considering that so many paths see it as completely natural and even normal, calling it (paranormal) or (supernatural) will just cause problems, and isn't really needed. Just make the main Magic page and then a disambiguation page. -Arkayne Magii 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the vandalism in the article
There has been a malicious change in this article, easily found in the first paragraph, please change back to the last good version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.31.75 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 July 2006 UTC

Is this article a hoax?
They actually link to Yoga, really? And other real articles about religion! Wow! This has got to be a scam! Flinders 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? What about the article is unclear to you, or seems wrong? Jkelly 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a hoax. Aleister Crowley was an early student of Yoga, Buddhism, Taoism and other discplines and his integration of these into his Magick are legit, though dated. -999 (Talk) 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! You've got to be joking! SynergeticMaggot 23:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Ha! It is a joke.  Flinders 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be explicited in this article that nothing here is real or has any real existence in the physical world. This might be unclear for many people reading this article.

Crowley only studied some Taoist texts and abit of Buddhism. I dont know if one can clearly say he was a "student" of Taoism or Buddhism. Perhaps it should be worded differently. Bob (Mar 8, 2007)

Suggestions from newbie
Hi. This is quite a rich article and kudos to those contributing. There does seem to be a need for sourcing though and I will do my best to contribute after research. I have heard of the use of yoga by various traditions though definitely that section needs sourcing. Id like to see a style change to make it read more neutrally whenever sources are introduced. eg Smith (year,page) says that blah blah..... There is a bit of undue argument in the article (notice the word -However- is used quite a bit). Apart from that I'm happy to work with others. AlanBarnet 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we move some of this to a new Ritual magic article?
For a long time I've thought Wikipedia needed a Ritual magic article; this is currently just a redirect to Magic (paranormal). There's a huge amount of history and techniques tied up in "ritual magic", and currently no article really does this justice. I see there's a lot of good writing here that relates most specifically to ritual magic, yet I also see complaints further up in the discussion page, that the implication seems to be that these techniques are the exclusive domain of Crowley and Thelemic magick.

Whenever possible I'd like to see concepts explored as broadly as possible, rather than from the perspective of only one tradition (an example would be Magic circle, which is currently described in almost purely Wiccan/neopagan witchcraft terms, but is a much older and wider concept than that). It seems to me that moving some of the material here into a Ritual magic article could make a really good start to the article. I'm not quite certain on the correct name for the article, since I imagine it exploring largely western ritual magic, and its origins in Europe, the near east and Arabia.

An alternative is to expand the Ceremonial magic article, but I'm aware that term has some quite specific implications.

Any thoughts? Fuzzypeg ☻ 23:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are onto a good idea. I'll check the literature again for distinguishing points. Being concise will help as that will allow sections to be used in both articles or for links to be made between. AlanBarnet 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Restrictive topics and sources?
There seems to be a lack of sources for alternative cultures who have used magick has well. Shamanistic,(Siberian) Native American, Japanese , African. (Vodoun) etc. There should be some references to other cultures and not such a blinkered limited approach.As far has i know magick was practiced long before Thelema or the Golden Dawn existed.--Redblossom 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look at the disabmiguation links at the top of the article. There are several other articles on magic. This one is for the "Magick" of Aleister Crowley, who adopted the spelling to distinguish his form of magic from earlier forms. The other articles are:
 * Folk magic
 * Magic (paranormal)
 * Witchcraft


 * "Magick" was not practiced before Aleister Crowley, "magic" was. To use Crowley's spelling to refer to earlier forms would be anachronisitic. Tunnels of Set 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, it's been a common enough spelling in English for centuries --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the re-use of the k originated with Crowley and only entered into popular English because of Crowley.24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That may well be, but that's not what the previous poster asserted. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Magical formulae
A magical formula is generally a name, word, or series of letters ... Common formulae include YHVH, INRI, IAO, ShT, AUMGN, NOX, and LVX.

These words often have no intrinsic meaning in and of themselves.

That is what "Magical formulae" article says, but if you search for INRI, you find that:

INRI is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM, which translates to English as: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews". It appears in the New Testament of the Christian Bible in the Gospels of Matthew (27:37), Mark (15:26); Luke (23:38), and John (19:19). Many crucifixes and other depictions of the crucifixion include a stylized plaque or parchment, called a titulus or title, bearing the letters INRI, occasionally carved directly into the cross, and usually just above the figure of Jesus.

So... INRI Does has an instrinsic meaning.

A draconis T 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, A draconis T. Yes, indeed, INRI has an intrinsic meaning as does YHVH, but other magickal formulas (such as "ABRAHADABRA") do not. :) Justin Eiler 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

INCORRECT
This paper has nothing to do with high magick The reason it doesn't is because high magick is specifically directed towards the Christian/Jewish God besides that its a good magick page

God Bless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.47.71.252 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * What the hell are you rambling about? If you're going to say an entire article is incorrect, you need more than two sentences.  I mean, look at me.. I'm using three to call you incoherent! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.10.249 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

The original poster might want to read Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view and attribution. High magic(k) means different things to different people. If you are Christian or Jewish, you might well believe high magic is directed toward the Judeo-Christian God. Otherwise, perhaps not. These are simply two different points of view, neither right or wrong as far as Wikipedia is concerned. My experience is that ceremonial magicians tend to move beyond petty squabbles over whose god is the true God; after a certain point in magic all such distinctions seem to evaporate. What do you know of high magic? Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OR
While there is a lot of content that is cited, there is also a lot that isn't, noticeably in the introductions of each section. S facets 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC) While tere is a lot which is cited, there is also a lot of content and opinion that isn't.  S facets


 * Then the sections should be tagged, not the article. Or the paragraphs you find objectionable. GlassFET 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction doesn't give any context, and I reached this page from sensational spelling, so I don't understand anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.116.34 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyond this, the portion"For Crowley, the alternate spelling was used to differentiate it from other practices, such as stage magic." This is FALSE, as is indicated in Crowley's own "Magick in Theory and Practice" as penned by Soror Virakam. She indicates that Crowley used this revival term "in order to distinguish the Science of the Magi from all its counterfeits." -- Book Four Part 2.

There have of course been those who utilized the spelling after him for the purpose noted wrongly for Crowley, and this should also be noted as part of the article. Publishers like Weiser (now Redwheel-Weiser) did so, and Llewellyn after them. The advent of the internet made it clear, once stage magicians seized hold of the term's 'magic' spelling for their use, that "occult magic" might be substitutable as "magick" helpfully. Wikipedia might be using it too if it didn't prioritize stage magic as 'magic' first and require 'magic_(paranormal)' as an inherent disambiguation. This usage (stage, then occult) is of course conventional to a degree and may be found within dictionaries and encyclopedias, but in occult wikis they have of course reversed this usage.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stage magic is a counterfeit of genuine and effective Magic (or Magick). That is therefore at least one, and possibly all, of what Crowley meant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What about who believes this makes no sense? NPOV?
This is a Wikipedia article, and it is supposed to convey all points of view on its topic. As you surely know, many people believe that any form of (not-on-stage) magic does not exist; I believe this includes magick, but I'm no expert. How comes that neither the introduction mentions that nor there is any section named "criticism", nor anything like that? Many people believe that this is nonsense - as such, the verifiability of the subject seems problematic. Now, looking up Thelema explains that it is a religion; if that's the case, I would be happy if you prepended to the whole article "between followers of the religion of Thelema/of the beliefs of occultism, ..." or something like that. --Blaisorblade (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Magick → Magick (Aleister Crowley) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC) to make way for a disambiguation page. shows several disambiguated uses of "Magick", and there is no dab page for it. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. Most of the articles beginning with Magick are about Crowley, directly or indirectly (Magicka doesn't seem to be, but doesn't belong on the proposed dab either; the other exceptions are songs, and they may well intend the reference). In short, Crowley's system is the primary meaning of this spelling, as he intended; most readers who type it in will want this article, or have a specific book by Crowley or his followers in mind. The first class are inconvenced by this, the second won't care.(Nothing in the present placement of the article prevents somebody who wants to write Magick (disambiguation) from doing so; but if the articles all begin with Magick, the dab page offers little advantage over not having it and relying on the search engine.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. First I note, for what interest there may be, that this topic involves technical aspects of the use of the English language. Now, there are many uses of the word "magic" in its alternative spelling "magick", and a great number of readers will be misled by the unqualified title as it now stands. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not helpful in determining this one. It offers, as all too frequently in recent RMs, a distraction from what is important in the case. Modern, partisan appropriation of an old spelling is no justification for removing clear, well-focused, and immediately useful information. N oetica Tea? 01:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that; feel free to ask Elen. The difference is no technical aspect, but Crowley's deliberate choice of spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The new title would be inaccurate and misleading. Magick isn't all about Aleister Crowley. Crowley is referred to throughout the article because he was an authority on the subject, but (these days) magick exists independently of Crowley. (And magick has a more specific meaning than magic, so it's not the same thing.) — Jean Calleo (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Magik has its own disambiguation page, making that spelling much easier to find. So this should as well. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.