>I have been working on a theory as to how magick and modern science
> would work in cohesion, as in, it goes over 'magick' phenomenon with
> scientifically cohesive explanations that are not in violation of the
> currently accepted laws of physics. In other words it shows how magick
> is possible without violating the laws of physics nor discrediting
> claims of magick.
Everything rests on what you choose to label a "magick phenomenon". Any
allegedly induced effect can be considered magical if you don't know how it
was done. That means that some particular "magical" effect might have been
accomplished by entirely different means than another particular "magical"
effect. To try to attribute both effects to the same cause simply because
they are both mysterious might very well be futile.
> I dont want to get into the whole thing right now because its
> incomplete but I do need some information. Im not really into the
> magical community per se. It seems many of them base their theories
> off of hope instead of wanting to see what actually works. But I read
> a review about this place and it sounded like one of the few places
> that is genuinely interested in magick that really does what so many
> people claim.
This is partially true. Some folks here are; others aren't. You'll find
all sorts of opinions.
> Anyways enough of the rant. I am here first and foremost, wanting to
> know if anyone has performed a form of physical manipulation of
> reality through a form of magick. That is that you manipulated some
> aspect of reality and it was a measurable change. I am asking because
> I would like to analyze and try to reproduce the results so as to
> further build backing for the general theory of magick.
That's going to be the trick, finding replicable results. You'll find many
people eager to recount past experiences that seemed magical to them but
can't reproduce the effects on demand. You'll find many people who will
claim that pretty much anything that happens after they did this or that
magical operation is a "result", so a particular action done this time may
have completely different "results" the next time you try it. I call this
the "post hoc" variety of magick, based on the well-known logical fallacy
"post hoc ergo propter hoc".
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
> Also, I noticed there are a wide variety of definitions of what
> anything magick is per se. Some people call demons real physical
> lifeforms and others call them parts of the psyche. So if you are
> using those types of terms please explain what definition you go by.
The one I favor most is from the Lemegeton, a magical grimoire that dates to
the 17th Century.
"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of Natural
Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a right
understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so that true Agents
being applied to proper Patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby
be produced. Whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into
Nature; they, because of their skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the
which to the vulgar shall seem to be a miracle."
Essentially this means that the magician knows how to do something that
seems impossible to people who don't know how it was done. Once they *do*
know how it's done, it no longer seems "magical" to them.
You'll find that a lot of people like to explain their effects in a way that
makes them personally integral to the effect they claim to have caused. If
anybody could do it impersonally, like turning on a light switch, it loses
its magical quality and becomes mere technology. What is important to them
is that some aspect of their unique nature is critical to the magical
process, such that the magical effects they get are unique to them. If you
can't get the same effects using the same means, that does not invalidate
*their* claim to have magically caused the effect, because *you* are not
*them*.
Again, what appears to be miraculous is magical. What does not appear to be
miraculous is not magical.
How do you propose to measure the subjective appearance of a miracle? Any
given person may consider any given event to be miraculous. There are times
when everything that happens seems miraculous. That makes everything
magical. To come up with a truly workable general theory of magick, that
single theory going to have to explain everything that ever happened or
could ever happen. That seems like quite a stretch. I'd be fascinated to
see how you manage it.
