From: Tyagi@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick
Subject: Re: Why `magick' with a 'k' (Kreeping FAQ)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 93 08:33:47 PST
Jeff Lee asks:
|Why do some people -- mostly pagans, from my experience -- spell `magic'
|as `magick'? Is it to differentiate it from the sleight-of-hand and
|illusion performed on stage? A tribute to Aleister Crowley? A way of
|being different?
[deletia]
FAQ Question #1 (What is magicK?)
I'm new to this group, and I'm now wondering what the difference
between MAGIC and MAGICK is. Is it white and black magic or what??
My response (if you respond too I may integrate yours with mine, and I
will repost this every time this question arises in the group):
A) Magic is prestidigitation, showmanship and is described quite well
by those in the newsgroup 'alt.magic' (without the 'k').
B) MagicK has been defined by many people in many different ways.
There is no universally agreed definition, so it is best approached
obliquely or en masse. One popular mage defined it as 'the Science
and Art of causing Change to occur in comformity with Will.'
(Aleister Crowley)
Some see magick as a kind of energy which pervades the cosmos. Some
see it as a psychic tool by which one may influence the material world
through the use of symbols and ritual. Some see it as a means of
coming to unite with the divine, some simply a way to exercise will or
Will.
Many have posited the differentiation of magical 'currents' or
'energies' based on style and/or intent. Some describe that which
intends harm as 'black magic(k)', yet this not a consensus among mages
by any means.
Whatever magick is, this is the subject of the alt.magick newsgroup.
For that reason it is best left undefined and will constantly be
discussed using its various definitions.
Crowley is often given credit for applying the kteisic 'k', yet, as
Robert Mathiesen writes:
All these English words derived from Latin words in -ic- or Greek
words in -ik- were commonly spelled -ick- in English, when the
pronunciation had the "k" sound, well into the late 1700's; but were
spelled -ic- in English when the pronuncia- tion changes to an "s" or
"sh" sound.
Thus: magick, magicks, magickally; and if we had a verb "to magick,"
its forms would be magicking and magicked. However, only magician,
never "magickian," because the pronunciation in this word is not "k",
but "sh" (for Americans) or "s" (for some English).
After about 1800, people started dropping the "k" except when a vowel
"e" "i" or "y" immediately followed. Thus we now write magic; but it
there were a verb "to magic," we would still write "magicking" and
"magicked," just as we do with the verb "to picnic."
If you want a good example of an English text with the "k" still used
as I have described, take a look at the first edition of the English
translation of Agrippa's _Three Books of Occult Philosophy_ (1651),
available in your nearest high-level rare book library if you're
lucky.
So Crowley just revived an archaic spelling for his own purposes. He,
however, being rather well-educated, never blundered into spellings
like 'magickian" (gaack)!
Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM
____________________________________________________
Symonds and Grant, in their introduction to _Magick_ (_Book Four_,
Parts I/II/III), write:
"The Anglo-Saxon *k* in Magick, like most of Crowley's conceits, is a
means of indicating the kind of magic which he performed. K is the
eleventh letter of several alphabets, and eleven is the principal
number of magick, because it is the number attributed to the Qliphoth
- the underworld of demonic and chaotic forces that have to be
conquered before magick can be performed. K has other magical
implications: it corresponds to the power or *shakti* aspect of
creative energy, for k is the ancient Egyptian *khu*, *the* magical
power. Specifically, it stands for *kteis* (vagina), the complement
to the wand (or phallus) which is used by the Magician in certain
aspects of the Great Work."
Page xvi.
___________________________________
I'll note that K is also the beginning letter of the Great Mother
Goddess Kali, and that Grant and many other magicians of this
Aeon/Age/Era have quite an affinity for Her (myself included). This
says what the editors of this book thought about Crowley's revision,
but it does not really quote him, so I cannot be sure of its accuracy.
Anyone got any further quotes from the Master proper regarding this?
Tyagi Nagasiva, Keeper of the Kreeping FAQ
Tyagi@HousEofKAos.AByss.com (THE KA'AB)
------------------------------------------
Some people think of magick in terms of 'laws', like Tim here, who
quotes some Whitcomb:
Well, I thought that this might apply to the current thread, it is
found in the Axioms section of _The Magician's Companion_, by Bill
Whitcomb, which reads as follows:
The Law of Labeling:
____________________
When you label something, you exclude information about it. This
is because the thing becomes obscured by other information stored
under the label for the thing.
If i were to say, "I study magic," this would immediately bring up
all the associations and stored data under the label "magic." Some
people would believe I am a stage magician; some people would think I
am a satanist, while still others would decide that I study magic as a
historian. Yet none of these things actually has anything to with
what I would mean by the word "magic."
When you symbolize something, you impose the deep structure of the
symbol system used on the way you pereive the thing symbolized. There
is a japanese proverb which relates that to confusing the Moon finger
pointing to the Moon.
People tend to believe that they understand something when they
have a name for it. This is called nominalization. It enables people
to take very ill-defined concepts and continuing processes and talk
about them as if they were concrete things. The problem is that
frequently even the users of these terms (names) do not know what they
mean. Nominalization is an important tool but we must realize when we
are using it.
The Law of Information Packing:
_______________________________
The more information contained in a symbol, the more general
(vague) it becomes. The more specific a symbol system is, the more
information it excludes.
I dont know if this helps, but to me it demostrates that definitions
are important for communication, but a balance must be struck between
defining something, and limiting something with the said definition.
Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Readings on general magick and its history:
[Please post your additions and corrections to this reading list
in this thread, thanks.]
General
_Magick_, by Aleister Crowley ('Book Four', Parts I/II/III), edited by
Symonds and Grant, Arkana Books, 1989.
_Magick Without Tears_, by Aleister Crowley, edited by Israel Regardie,
Falcon Press(?), 1989 (There may be a newer edition).
_Real Magic_, by Isaac Bonewits, Samuel Weiser, 1989.
_Magic: Its Ritual, Power and Purpose_, by W.E. Butler, Aquarian Press,
1975.
_Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Rituals_, by Eliphas Levi,
Samuel Weiser, 1970.
_Magic, Science and Religion_, by Bronislow Malinowski, Doubleday, 1964.
_The Magical Philosophy_, Denning and Phillips, Llewellyn, 1974.
History
_The History of Magic_, by Eliphas Levi, Samuel Weiser, 1988.
_The Black Arts_, by Richard Cavendish, Putnam, 1968.
_Magic: Its History and Principle Rites_, by M. Bouisson, transl. by
G. Almayrac, Dutton, 1961.
_History of Magic, Witchcraft and Occultism_, by W.B. Crow,
Aquarian Press, 1968.
For Witchcraft - See the alt.paganFAQ
=============================== End of ALT.MAGICK.KREEPING.FAQ#1
This is from a series of continually-updated posts responding to
recurrent questions in this newsgroup. Please debate anything in here
which seems extreme and add your own response to these questions after
the post. I'll integrate what I can. Thanks.
Tyagi Nagasiva
Tyagi@HousEofKAos.AByss.com (THE KA'AB)