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)