The Laws Of Magick, Concepts under review. Options

The Laws of Magick are the basis for most spellwork and sorcery as far as the majority of us are concerned. These concepts are the longstanding observations from, well, probably as long as humans are capable of accurately recounting. I am starting a journal/grimoire to put my own observations in. I am taking the Laws of Magick and reviewing them to see what all needs replaced or removed, or quite possibly, added. I have already started and quite honestly I am not sure how to proceed. Any ideas on magickal testing to prove or disprove any Laws without associating any of the other Laws would be most helpful. If testing these Laws proves impossible without associating any other laws, please at least keep the use of other laws at a minimum. And if it really does prove impossible to keep other Laws unassociated within the testing of the various laws, then i will proceed as if I were facing the world's greatest Rubik's Cube. Trial and error, time and time again... and when I'm done(who knows how many years from now) I will be sure to report my findings to these forums so that everyone may question it, confirm it, ponder at it, or whatever the case may be. Thank you for at least reading, even if you think that I'm wasting my time.

hehe, yeah, Nanner is meant to be kinda tongue in cheek (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) but also to have some fairly serious points, humor with a serious message (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Are these discrete models - and I'm thinking here western esotericism vs. african tribal magic (in terms of the degree of difference, not specific traditions) - effectively utilizing and experience different mechanics all together, or are they really just adressing those mechanics in different ways?

very interesting question.
I think, that in some cases, it is true that people are doing the exact same thing but calling it something different, and using slightly different ritual "props", etc. So that what you have is two different traditions and one basic belief/method (underneath the dogmatic trappings).

And I think that in other cases, people are doing things which are actually quite different in terms of the functional mechanics of it.
I can think of a number of magical 'effects' which could be arrived at by more than one 'different' mechanical method, even within the same paradigm/system.
I think that frater u.d.'s little article on models of magick is basically an attempt to refine things down to a few core 'basic' mechanisms, or theories, about how magick works. I think he's doing, in a way, much the same thing as the original poster was hoping to do, but on a very generalized level.

Of course all of this is a matter of perspective... I am basing my opinion on my own experiences & practice as well as studying that of others. But as i pointed out before, successful magick & strong correlations & mechanisms & intricacies, etc. of my own working systems (plural), can be deceptively self-reinforcing, leading one towards a false sense of 'rightness'.
I'd sum up by saying that I have numerous ideas about how magick works, I don't think all magick is actually functionally 'done' the same way, at the most basic level, and I'm always open to new ideas about how magick works (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I suspect that until I achieve my spiritual goals, all of this will remain 'a matter of perspective' to me.

And then on a less cognitive level, I have my patron, with whom I interact intellectually, but when she offers input on how things work, I tend to regard it as somewhat more 'solid' than if it is just my own theory which proves reliable. But then she is herself pretty relativistic in explaining things, generally her input on a topic of magical practice is that the reality of it is something which cannot be 'perfectly' captured by any set of words, like any 'label' it will always fall short of fully embodying the entirety of the thing described. So you can have numerous descriptions ("complex labels") of the magick, which each perhaps contain 'some' truth, but none containing 'all' of it. ...Much like the parable of the blind men & the elephant, actually.
Anyway, I do regard her input as 'trusted' in a way which I can't logically substantiate though. I know her, very intimately, and I simply do trust her word. Her input gets sort of a 'free pass' on conflicts with my own understanding, as she has repeatedly been born out as having a much deeper and more accurate insight than I.

Are frater u.d.'s models of magick just the trunk and ears and tusks of a single elephant? I find that really hard to answer. I'm going to have to go with "I don't know". I would say that 'everything' in this universe (and any of it's subtle layers) is all part of one big elephant, so in that sense, the science of a flashlight and the art of summoning could be said to be all part of "designing an effect in the universe" and all one basic grand thing... but, I don't think they work on exactly the same principals... it depends on how 'generalized vs. specific' you choose to regard the matter I think. Sort of a categorizing affair.

kudos, my brain feels quite stretched out by your question & the resulting thought trains. if I have seemed to give an answer, I am misrepresenting my thoughts. I have instead found myself exploring a plethora of subsequent questions. merci beaucoup (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Kath: Dec 26 2009, 04:04 PM