Occulus Magicus Mundi

[Rupert Giles]

Occultus Magicus Mundi
Hidden Magic of the World

A Treatise on Magic

By Carl Eric von Kleist the Fourth, Archmagus
Head of the Order of the White Robes
Head of the Conclave of Wizards, Earth

A Brief Introduction

   This may eventually become a rather long and rambling treatise -- more of a statement of hope and belief than a true discertation on the so-called laws that govern the so-called supernatural in our world.  First of all, I say 'so-called supernatural' as there seems to a connotation attached to the word 'Magic' in our culture that puts it out of the realm of the natural -- things just apparently don't happen the same in the world most other people live in.  And I don't pretend to actually believe that there are true, hard and fast, everbinding laws that govern magic.  Magic is not a Science -- it is an art.  The Art.  That's Capital A Lower Case rt.  Just thought I should clarify.  I grow very weary very quickly of many pagans who run around now adays babbling about 'The Craft' as though the so called 'Craft' they practice is the same 'Craft' the person they speak to practices.  Atleast the notion that Wicca, as the religion most of these persons fall into is named, is some ancient religion that used to be practiced everywhere and is a descendant of some Universal religion of Antiquity before Patriarchal Societies mucked everything up is pretty much out of favor, save among some of the more militant, closed-minded feminist 'covens.'

   I tend to wander on, though, and I lose my train of thought quickly.  But as I was trying to say, Wicca, as well as practically any 'Witchcraft' religion you will find today is completely made up.  Does this make them any less valid?  No.  All religions are first born in the realm of Dreams, all Gods are first birthed in Fiction.  That does not make them any less real.  But some people seem to take a superior air, or even a rather condescending, or still more shocking yet, tone of voice that seems to put the point across to me that they think I'm missing rather a few screws when I say that my religion is made up, and you can learn a great deal about it if you go down to the Fantasy section of a bookstore and look for the 'Dragonlance' series of books.

   Still, my religion is not the topic of focus, atleast not at this point in my diatribe, and I do feel that this had become a bit of a one-sided airing of greivances, for which I do apologise.  I will try to stay on point from now on.

I -- Magic

   The subject which I will first speak of is simply, "What is Magic?"

   Unfortunately, there is no definate answer.  One of the better answers, atleast, one that gives some illumination in a manner I like, is from Aleister Crowley.  He states, "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will."

   It is an excellent definition -- all forms of magic, from the High Sorcery that I practice, to Wicca, to the workings of a Hedge Wizard, to Aboriginal Magics and even Prayer, are all different ways of making reality change according to what one desires, or wills to be.

   However, Crowley's definition is, in my view, a bit too broad.  It includes all acts, mundane and magical, within its scope. In Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter XIV, Crowley says:

   "What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose."

   In my view, Magic is the ability to make things happen through means that are not commonly accepted.  Namely, making something happen by wishing it, by willing the situation, the solution, or the problem into existance.  Whether this is done by Prayer to some Diety, or through ritual chant, or through ritual designed to harness the flow of some energy, it is all the same.  It is, to vandalise Crowley, "The Art of causing change in reality, occuring in conformity with the will via religious means."

   Oh, dear.  I seemed to have slipped a dirty word in there.  'Religious.'  It means so many different things to so many different people.  But a Christian praying to have their sick grandmother get better is asking for the intercession of a Diety.  A Wiccan casting a spell is invoking the Goddess (and/or the Green Man), a Shaman is seeking the intercession of the Spirits, and when I cast a spell I am directing the Power given to me by Solinari.  All Magic stems from, if not a God or Goddess, then from a force which can only be termed spiritual, if not religious.  Even those who deny the existance of any God or Goddess and yet work magic, manipulating the Mana inherent in all things, still have a spiritual aspect.

   Now, I think we've got a fairly good definition going on here, so let's home I don't get sidetracked.  Magic, as I now define it again ( Your Mileage -- or Definition -- May Vary ), is "The Art of causing change in reality, occuring in conformity with the will via religious means."

   I say Art, and not Science, whereas Crowley uses both, because how can one call something a science when the same results may be obtained by various different methods, but the methods do not work from Religion to Religion, sometimes even within a single Religion, from adherent to adherent?  Magic is an Art -- like Pottery, or Sewing, or Making.  You take raw ingredients, and with skill, and a certain ammount of  je ne sais quoi -- like all Artists, you put a bit of yourself into the creation, and thus is it made -- and you get a result.  That is magic.

End Part I.

[Slarti]

very cool. can't wait for part 2.

[Rupert Giles]

II -- Laws of Magic; Morality; Absurdity

"When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied."
-Tacitus

"There's nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
-William Shakespeare

"Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value."
-Anonymous Coward

   Welcome back.  Sit down, have a glass of Jim Jones Punch.  Archmagus von Kleist is going to talk to you now about morality, and law.  As they partain to magic.  If you're still reading this, I must be interesting -- either thought provoking or comical -- and you obviously want to hear more on the subjects on which I'm going to be speaking.

   One of the thing's I'd like to touch on, in no way lightly, is The Wiccan Rede, and to a lesser extent, the 'Three Fold Law.'  Actually, I think I just lied -- well, not lied.  Misinformed.  I'm going to be talking about both of them a great deal.

   One of the things I have never understood is the Wiccan Rede -- 'An it harm none, do as ye will' -- or something to the same effect in different styles of english.  Somewhere along the line, someone seems to have come up with the idea that the universe on a whole seems to care what every little person does to everyone else.  It doesn't.  If I go out and kill someone, the Universe will not punish me.  The Universe does not care if you're good.  It doesn't care if you're evil.  It doesn't care if you're having fun, or tired, or if your body can't withstand a six story drop, or if funny chemicals will kill you quick or kill you slow or fry your brain.  The Universe is not going to punish you for an infraction.

   However, I am going to get punished.  Not by the Universe, though.  I'm going to get punished by other people -- the authorities in particular, who are going to try their damnedest to throw me in prison for the rest of my life or to take my life in payment for the one I took.  I'm also going to have royaly pissed off Solinari, along with some other dieties.  Or maybe I didn't piss off Solinari.  Maybe I was justified entirely in his eyes.  And maybe I won't goto Jail.  Maybe Solinari is pissed, but the person in question was killed for torturing poor little kittens to death, and Bast is happy someone killed him.

   The point I am trying to make, rather poorly, is that the Idea of doing whatever you want as long as it harms no one is a rather unfollowable practice.  Ever single action you take, no matter what it is, could be proven in some way to harmfully affect someone, somewhere.  'Do what you want, but know there are consequences, cause the government doesn't like it when you cheat on your taxes' is a much better adage.  There are two things that are overlooked in the Wiccan Rede:  Firstly, some people just don't care.  They're going to do what they want, hurt whoever it takes, and the consequences be damned, and no vague parental figure, shaking his fist at them down through the centuries, saying, "Do it... Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you!" is not going to stop them.

   The second problem with the Wiccan Rede is more serious, and has come up in many fields.  Two of which are Philosophy and Robotics.  Anouther might be Law.  The problem is how does one define morality?  How does one define Good and Evil, Right and Wrong?  Each culture makes its own judgment of what Right and Wrong are.  For example, here in Amerika, none of us Baka Gai-jin care too much if I pour a drink with my left hand.  In Japan, outside of a funeral, that's a no-no.  Also, the definitions of 'Good,' 'Evil,' 'Right,' and 'Wrong' vary not only from culture to culture, but from person to person within that culture.

   I nearly validated Godwin's Law just a few moments ago searching for a suitable example.  Instead I'll use the Klan -- They don't invoke Godwin's Law.

   Take a look at the Klu Klux Klan (a Corruption of the Greek kyklos, meaning circle ) as an example.  Here are people who, some of them at least, were brought up in a society that says that murder is wrong.  But for one reason or anouther, some of them would be very happy, and consider it a good deed, to go out and kill anyone who doesn't fit into their 'model' of the white 'race.'  Obviously none of them ever majored in Anthro in college.

   Also, take a look at the 'Rebels' in the south.  Many of them were brought up Christian, and part of that Religion is to 'love thy brother,' yet many of them would consider it a good thing to kick every 'Yankee' out of the 'South' and 'Rise Again.'

   Not quite so similiarly, I myself would have no problem with killing someone who has attempted to harm me.  I don't care if it's me killing the man who's trying to rob me or me killing the person who tried to punch me in a bar -- They attacked me, and it's a hell of a lot easier to kill than restrain.  But this is considered wrong by many in the society in which I live.

   You cannot make broad, sweeping generalisations about morals, which is something I have tried and will continue to try doing.  And with the Three-Fold Law, the law that states, "Do good and it will return to you threefold. Do evil and it will return to your threefold."  This is but one wording -- there are many wordings, and they all convey the same meaning.  To quote Doreen Valiente, "Another teaching of Gerald's which I have come to question is the belief known popularly as "the Law of Three". This tells us that whatever you send out in witchcraft you get back threefold, for good or ill.  Well, I don't believe it! Why should we believe that there is a special Law of Karma that applies only to witches? For Goddess' sake do we really kid ourselves that we are that important? Yet I am told, many people, especially in the USA, take this as an article of faith. I have never seen it in any of the old books of magic, and I think Gerald invented it."

   The way I view the world, your actions will come back to you, not because the Universe has one giant spreadsheet application going on its celestial OS (Due out right after Duke Nukem Forever), but because someone (Diety or Man) is going to react to you.  Maybe that girl will thank me for opening a door for her, or maybe she'll slap me like some of the others have.  Maybe a stranger will reward me for finding and returning their wallet, or maybe they will just thank me, and depending on my own personality, whether I'm happy because I did a good deed, or feeling jipped because I didn't get a reward, will determine the outcome of my day -- not a Celestial Abacus wielded by an impartial universe.

   And at this point, I think I have digressed too far.

End Part II

[gnimbley]

At least you are thinking CC. Good job!

::munching cookies while he waits for part three::

[eighteen buddha strike]

I always thought the three-fold law was fishy for the simple reason that its unbalanced. If X event happens, the counter-reaction for that event is three times contains three times as much energy as the original event? How the fuck does that work?!

[Rupert Giles]

I always thought the three-fold law was fishy for the simple reason that its unbalanced. If X event happens, the counter-reaction for that event is three times contains three times as much energy as the original event? How the fuck does that work?!

It doesn't, in my opinion.  Crowley made it up.  Not only did he make it up, he didn't even make it up like most people seem to think it is.  But that's the evolution of religion for you, coming from a guy who believes in Gods from Dragonlance.

[eighteen buddha strike]

I always thought the three-fold law was fishy for the simple reason that its unbalanced. If X event happens, the counter-reaction for that event is three times contains three times as much energy as the original event? How the fuck does that work?!

It doesn't, in my opinion.  Crowley made it up.  Not only did he make it up, he didn't even make it up like most people seem to think it is.  But that's the evolution of religion for you, coming from a guy who believes in Gods from Dragonlance.

I always found that cosmology lacking, but I'll just chalk that up to a difference of opinion.

[Rupert Giles]

I always thought the three-fold law was fishy for the simple reason that its unbalanced. If X event happens, the counter-reaction for that event is three times contains three times as much energy as the original event? How the fuck does that work?!

It doesn't, in my opinion.  Crowley made it up.  Not only did he make it up, he didn't even make it up like most people seem to think it is.  But that's the evolution of religion for you, coming from a guy who believes in Gods from Dragonlance.

I always found that cosmology lacking, but I'll just chalk that up to a difference of opinion.

It's funny.  I spent the first 12 years of my life trying to find a pantheon, a religion, a way of life, that made sense to me.  That felt 'right.'  Christianity was majorly lacking.  I couldn't do Buddhism.  Tried really hard, too.  Athiesm wasn't for me.  Deep down, I knew something was there.  For the longest time I was Agnostic, but that was only because I couldn't make up my mind.

Then one day I stumbled across (read:  Had it thrown in my face) Dragons of Autumn Twilight.  I opened it up, and found myself sitting in the Inn of the Last Home, with a plate of Otik's Spiced Potatoes infront of me, and a Kender rummaging through my pouches, and knew I'd finally come home.  Found that place in which I belonged.  Only it wasn't finding it.  To paraphrase Goldmoon, "Pretend you had a beautiful gem.  And one day, you're out in the forest.  And you lose that gem.  But you find anouther one.  Except it isn't the same:  It doesn't shine as brightly.  It's not the right size, the right shape.  And you come out of the forest with that new gem.  Does that mean that the old one isn't there still?  Did the Gods leave us, or did we leave the Gods?"

It all suddenly felt right.  The world seemed like a better place.  I could believe in Paladine, Mishakal, Kiri-Joloth, Majere and the other Gods of Light.  Just like I could believe in Gilean, Reorx, Chislev and Zivilyn.  And I could believe in Takhisis, Sargas, Morgion, Chemosh and all the rest.

I moved from place to place, trying to find a spot for myself in this diverse group.  I couldn't swear to the Code and the Measure, revere Paladine and Kiri-Joloth and Habbakuk.  Gilean was too much contemplation for me.  I couldn't drink enough for Reorx, though he did say I was one of the nicest doorknobs he'd ever met, and If I could just hold my alcohol better I might be something resembling a dwarf.  He also wanted his pouches back, which I profusely apologised for.  Takhisis was too cold and cruel for me.

And then one night I looked up into the sky and I saw three moons where I knew the other night there'd been only the one.  I looked around and found everything had two shadows -- the Silver light of Solinari and the Crimson glow of Lunitari bathed me and the world.  And I could see Nuitari.  I could feel the rays of its dark light upon me, and knew I'd found my place.

But as time went on I knew that the path of Darkness wasn't for me.  I found that I cared about people, and I seemed to care about them quite a bit, and the more I cared the less Nuitari seemed to care for me.  One day I woke up and found that there were only two moons in the sky, and Nuitari had turned his back on me.  And that was when I asked Solinari for a favor.  I turned my life around.  Moved out of my Parent's house, got a job, started paying some bills, managed to live, if not a normal life, a good one.  I can journey to the ends of this earth, wade in the River of Time, visit the Planes.  I can feel the Magic in my blood, feel it bubbling through me, feel the power that's a part of me.  I look up at the Silver Moon and I'm comforted, no matter what is wrong.  I found that in serving others, I serve myself best.  And I can live with that.  More than just live with it, I'm happy with it.

[eighteen buddha strike]

I'm trying to remember the first instance in which I experienced that sensation. I'm pretty sure it was sparked by the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

My criticism for the Dragonlance cosmology is simply that I've always liked the cosmology of other settings better (as D&D settings go, I am referring specifically to Planescape and Forgotten Realms.) My complete lack of sentimental value for Dragonlance, even though I like the way it portrays gnomes, kind of kills my ability to think of the cosmology of it as anything more than the Zoorastrianic good vs evil set-up.

Paladine VS Takhisis: Good VS Evil : Law VS Chaos

I add, however, that the Dragonlance books have a charm to them. While I am unaffected by it, I feel almost terrible for criticizing them because I realize that I've probably completely ignored whatever it was that makes them so endearing to people.

PS: Raistlin is a power gamer, by all standards, but at least he's better than Elminster.

[Rupert Giles]

I'm trying to remember the first instance in which I experienced that sensation. I'm pretty sure it was sparked by the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

My criticism for the Dragonlance cosmology is simply that I've always liked the cosmology of other settings better (as D&D settings go, I am referring specifically to Planescape and Forgotten Realms.) My complete lack of sentimental value for Dragonlance, even though I like the way it portrays gnomes, kind of kills my ability to think of the cosmology of it as anything more than the Zoorastrianic good vs evil set-up.

Paladine VS Takhisis: Good VS Evil : Law VS Chaos

I add, however, that the Dragonlance books have a charm to them. While I am unaffected by it, I feel almost terrible for criticizing them because I realize that I've probably completely ignored whatever it was that makes them so endearing to people.

PS: Raistlin is a power gamer, by all standards, but at least he's better than Elminster.

It's not about Good Versus Evil.

It's about Good Versus Neutrality Versus Evil.

Most religions seem to have a scale going on -- Good on one side, Evil on the other.  DragonLance has someone balancing a Triangular Widget* on one of their fingers.  One corner is Good, one is Neutrality, one is Evil.

As we have seen in Real Life all too much, Good taken to extremes gets you:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Senseless War.

Evil taken to extremes gets you:  Concentration Camps.  The Night of Broken Glass.  Ethnic Cleansing.

Neutrality taken to extremes gets you:  Stagnation.  The Catholic Church during WWII.  Nobody lifting a finger in a City to help the girl who's being raped on the street.

None of the three can be allowed to be too powerful.  A single candle may hold back the darkness, and the darkness may surround the light, and where the light is not strong, but the darkness not overbearing, shadows live.  Good is Defined by Evil.  Neutrality is defined by Good and Evil.

All three must exist.

I lost my point somewhere along the way.

[gnimbley]

Quit licking the dot.

[Rupert Giles]

Quit licking the dot.

Er... Which dot?  The one on the application or the many assorted dots in my room that don't exist anymore because I stopped doing drugs and they are but merely phantom dots, the echos of might have beens, interwoven with this causality stream?

[gnimbley]

Quit licking the dot.

Er... Which dot?  The one on the application or the many assorted dots in my room that don't exist anymore because I stopped doing drugs and they are but merely phantom dots, the echos of might have beens, interwoven with this causality stream?

Right.

[Rupert Giles]

Quit licking the dot.

Er... Which dot?  The one on the application or the many assorted dots in my room that don't exist anymore because I stopped doing drugs and they are but merely phantom dots, the echos of might have beens, interwoven with this causality stream?

Right.

Your avatar winked at me again.

[gnimbley]

Quit licking the dot.

Er... Which dot?  The one on the application or the many assorted dots in my room that don't exist anymore because I stopped doing drugs and they are but merely phantom dots, the echos of might have beens, interwoven with this causality stream?

Right.

Your avatar winked at me again.

::shuddering and shaking::

Well ... well ... your avatar ... well ... well .... it's ... well ... welll ...

::faints::