![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Occult Vs. Magick
A peculiar discussion arose in response to my recent post on what I hate about the occult. In particular, the conversation has to do with the differences (if any) between the “occult” and “magick.”
Jennifer Emick, of About.com’s Alternative Religion section, left the following clarification on the difference between the two.
An occultist does not neccessarily seek to influence anyone- that’s a function of magick (but not all magick).
Most occultism is theurgic and has absolutely nothing to do with influence or power, and in most cases, is about uncovering the nature of reality- truth, which is occluded, hence, occult, the search for what is hidden. The occult is vilified because it seeks to bypass dogma and institutionalized belief.
Since I don’t especially consider myself a practicing occultist or magic(k)ian (which I know riles some people up, considering the subject matter of my site), I don’t really feel qualified to weigh in for or against the definition given above. If you’d like to add to this discussion, please do so. I’m especially interested in hearing from people who consider themselves practicing occultists or magicians - so please identify yourself as such in the comments below. Do these terms have any distinction in your own practice, thinking or experience? Do you think the distinction is useful?
PS. If you’re unfamiliar with the term “theurgic” used above, Wikipedia’s definition is:
Theurgy describes the practice of rituals, sometimes seen as magical in nature, performed with the intention of invoking the action of God (or other personified supernatural power), especially with the goal of uniting with the divine, or perfecting or improving oneself.
If we apply that broadly, many forms of non-magical religious practices might be considered theurgical given the right conditions or intent: prayer, mass, etc. That, however, may lead to a whole other discussion on it’s own.
Obeah Love Spells from a real witch Mr. Kofi will solve all your relationship problems with powerful and authentic spiritual help, such as love spells and reuniting lovers spells
January 26th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I have a friend who has been practicing craft for 20 years and whilst our interests and views are alike he goes is own way with his practice and i respect that. He seems to use his practice more for direct influence upon his life and his spiritual welfare. I dont know if im what you would call anything but i surround myself with symbols that are personal and trancendental in order to reach an altered state and look again at things from there.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
I don’t really have an opinion about labels. I have my own magickal techniques I use, that work for me. I also am ultimately interested in the true nature of reality. I see no conflict between the two, and I have no opinion about how my various interests should be labelled. My 2c.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
I think it’s a fairly accurate description and distinction. I just started reading “Modern Magick” by Donald Kraig, which is essentially a textbook for a course on Magick (lol, Kraig wrote it AFTER teaching magick classes for almost a decade).
An occultist, for me, is one who seeks to know. This may be from various rituals or psychadelics, etc. It’s almost always in the form of something outside one’s normal experience. I stress “one” because what may be inspirational or “occultic” for one person may be mundane for another. It’s all about being outside one’s own realm of understanding and experience.
A practicing magickian, IMO, is one who seeks to influence. Yes, at the start they seem, and perhaps are, occultists, but that is because one must learn and understand before one can apply the knowledge he/she has acquired to influence life.
In more physical terms, an occultist is like a scientist. They seek to KNOW, and they usually do this through critical thinking (ie. the scientific method). In fact Kraig mentions using the scientific method (including logs of rituals AND dreams) to gain a better understanding of oneself, to find common demoninators and what works best.
A magickian is much more like a applied scientist. They take what is known, and try to apply it (like building architectural wonders or designer drugs or new, and “better” materials). They need to learn certain aspects to affect a change, but they don’t need to know ALL (like some of us have the desire to). They seem to be more concerned with using knowledge to affect (for better or worse) their and other people’s lifes.
To me, it almost seems like the shaman is one who fits both. They seek to know and to influence (or help) the world and those in it. That is something that is more appealing to me than just magick or the occult.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
ktulu, I like what you wrote, except I’d like to fine-tune your analogy. There are “pure” scientists, “applied” scientists and also engineers. In the public world, I mean. There are also these three equivalents in the, let’s say “private” or “occult” world. What you call a “shaman” is the equivalent of an applied scientist: interested in knowlege, but also in its practical underpinnings. An engineer doesn’t care how things work, just that they do work.
Funny, in my non-magickal, non-occult life I’m an applied scientist, neither engineer nor pure scientist….
January 27th, 2006 at 12:02 am
I remember your intervier, Tim, with Mr. Pinchbeck where he said that he didn’t feel that “magick” was as necessary as shamanism, but what he meant was “making deals with ambivalent forces”…
Now, don’t get me wrong here, I’m on the “Light Side of the Force” as Zac put it, but this is ridiculously close to the black/white magick as Uncle Al put it, where doing anything besides some ritual working on the plane of Tipareth or higher is the only magically justified work… Personally, I think it’s kind of moronic… Things are more one and the same than it seems, Liber Anon sort of gets at this with the “scarlet gash”…
January 27th, 2006 at 12:07 am
as a practicing magictian, you begin to realize that it dosen’t matter. carl jung described the “spiritual” and the “psychological” to be the same thing. think about that. if every thing in the human mind is in fact spiritual, the only proof you need to measure your actions is success. such is the underlieing (occult, if you will) inspiration of psychology. whither your life is in disorder or your job is unfulfilling: you are choosing or at some level allowing that to be.
failiure in any realm indicates your magick is (if i may call, pure will) ineffective. that does not mean you are executing your true will, whatever that might be. but if you are not living the life you want to live you are not a healthy individual. magick is about making that change. what gets interesting is thats some other changes come along too. difficult situations, mental lapses, hyper awareness of faults, voices and visions, the fantastic and frightening.
it’s a great work. the crown of a life well lived: there is nothing in the two bit realm of human affairs you are not god and master of. only the strength of your anchor will keep you from falling off the edge of the earth and into megalomania and insanity in a world that is already more insane and only slightly more megalomanic than you already. this path is the tao, the great all that oriental paths have veiled in words so perfectly.
on the path i walk it’s called love, but it can be called many things and in fact can be confused with any thing yet i’m only interested in a few particular things (my path being pretty joe blow). i havent found any more direct method to change myself than magick and i owe my life to guarding the path with barbs of steel to anyone who only thinks about magick: what a shame. where the mystic stops, the magick starts. by analogy, the only fool is the neophyte that has misplaced his crown.
93
January 27th, 2006 at 3:56 am
Interesting, slomo and andrew. I like you’re “fine-tuning”, slomo, it was pretty much what i was getting at, though I didn’t have the time to expound fully.
Good points on both Jung and the Tao, andrew. I think the only way to truly grow is through an inter-disciplinary approach and understanding. The only thing I didn’t understand was the 93 at the end. Would you care to illuminate that, andrew?
January 27th, 2006 at 9:08 am
REF-Karl popper.
93- I will muse on this when i go for my daily walk near the ocean, i like to sit on the shore and gaze out across the waters. Usually i do this at night and under the shining moonlight because i find this is when questions are more substantially answered.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Just 100 years ago, this would not be even slightly unusual. Really, it seems like the “occult” has been moved completely outside the sphere of “mainstream” English-speaking discourse only since WWII.
I’ve been reading Saint-Martin’s Theosophic Correspondance, and highly recommend it to anyone interested in historical western occultism. It takes place during the French Revolution (coming soon to a democracy near you!) You won’t believe all the names that get dropped in here, like John Pordage, whom I’ve only ever seen mentioned elsewhere by Arthur Versluis.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:59 am
the distinction between “the occult” and “magic(k)” is of course semantic, which renders it largely arbitrary. in fact, i’d say that the definitions of those terms are relative to the groups employing said terms. for example, to fundamentalist or just conservative Christians the terms are almost certainly synonymous and both stand for spiritual practices other than those institutionalized into an approved religious manner (for example, i have met at least one of those who considers a spiritual agnostic who meditates to be practicing “the occult”), which are recognized as “evil” and invariably “Satanic”. to me, this is a combination of misinformation, clash of worldviews, and a projection of the shadow in a depth psychological sense.
in the context of those “in the know”, i’ve observed the pattern of “the occult” being considered a relatively broader term than “magic”. for example, astrology, conspiracy theory, hermeticism, mediums, sufism UFOism and theosophy might all be considered part of the “occult”. magic, however, describes a subset of the occult practices in which the practicioner seeks to actively employ occult forces either for union with the divine or personal power.
in a similar vein, when i hear “occultist” i think about someone who studies *about* the mysteries (your outer Wheel orbit, if i remember correctly) whereas a magician is one who at least attempts to *practice* or *live* the mysteries (inner Wheel).
and like all dualities (if you choose to view this pair as one) it’s as much a unity as it is an opposition…
January 27th, 2006 at 11:26 am
When speaking to such a person, just use the word “contemplation” instead of “meditation.” For some reason, to a lot of Americhristians these terms’ usages are switched around. They “meditate” on the scripture, and “contemplate” the Lord. Standard usage is the other way around.
“I am made all things to all men,” said Paul. Most people will actually be quite comfortable with quite a lot of weirdness, if you can speak to them in their idiom. The “barriers” seem to be mainly on the level of actual words, i.e. speech or text.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:54 am
absolutely. i know when speaking to my (orthadox Protestant, if you know what i mean) relatives about my interest in the occult, i almost always employ a Christian Gnostic set of terms so that what i’m talking about at least is related somehow to things they believe in rather than causing friction talking about “the gods” or “evocation” and other paganish or ceremonial magick terms.
though some of them are surprisingly open to the idea of “Holy Guardian Angel”. i don’t know if it’s because their conception of Christ performs and analagous function in their lives (as a bridge between individual soul and the universal Spirit) or if they just hear the “angel” part and think, “oh, well that’s nice and ‘biblical’ of you”.
it’s kind of sucks that often we’re talking about the same thing but the different words/maps/etc we use make communication (even more) difficult.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Yeah, I agree. But at the same time, it’s sometimes these small differences in meaning that can be the generative force behind a great deal of creative effort. In other words, if we all agreed and saw things the same way, there would be no need for conversation, literature or art.
Oh, absolutely. But from what I understand of much magick practice, it’s very much about grabbing hold of arbitrary semantic structures and bending them to your purpose. The most obvious example is how the word “magick” is spelled with a “k” on the end, rather than just as “magic.” It’s to enforce an arbitrary semantic distinction and identity.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Occult is such an ambiguous phrase and occultist is even more ambiguous. Occult - that which is hidden. Look the money I made last week has been occulted in my bank and the jelly doughnut that my little sister really wanted has been hidden in my stomach. And to some people, the information on this site has been occulted by strange links. All mysteries to little girls, bank robbers and old people!
I think the greatest part of the occult is that it really is up to you to label. You don’t need anyone to tell you that Jesus, no Ala, no Jehovah, ect, is the centerpiece of your ideals (Unless, of course, you are weak of mind and find yourself unable to question. Then you follow blindly and join a cult and find what it is like…. never mind!).
I found the original piece rather amusing because there are many aspects in the top ten that frustrate me as well. Like finding a reference that references a reference that references a reference and so on. Soon you don’t know where you started or where you’re going. And worse is when you finally find out that all of it was crap! Then you start to question wether this is really worth the effort and if it is indeed acctually occult, or occult enough for you.
I say don’t follow anyone’s set standard for the occult. If a person includes magic(k) question why and see if it matches your system of ideas about the occult. Is my jelly doughnut included… why or why not. In my opinion the instant you start following someone else’s pattern of thought you leave behind the trails of the occult because that person generates answers for you. The subject is no longer occult. Soon your occult becomes cult and with any luck Religion.
But then again Religion is occult by nature. The will of god is occult to all of us.. Except for me…. he tells me things…The Jesuits, the Knights Templar, relics hidden in the Vatican, Kabbalah, and Sufisim (sp?) are all occult subjects within three of our largest religions.
So instead of defining what is hidden and seeing if others agree, or if the grand master occultist so and so accepts your statements, just question everything around you and forget what others think. Be so strong that nothing can disturb your peace of mind. Question and when you finally find answers that work don’t let anyone shake you off your foundation unless you find your ideas are fundamentally flawed. But the important aspect… as with religion, faith, magic(k), sex, drugs, music, movies, driving directions, shampoo preferences, food, computer games, internet sites, the occult, family, porn, LIFE… is that it all boils down to YOU. No one else.
So what is occult… to you?
January 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Well, yes and no, Tim. Mostly it’s just for the sake of convenience.
Something to ponder, as far as semantiucs are concerned, is why the gods associated with magick and magicians are also the gods associated with learning- and especially, language. (Consider abracadabra, I create as I speak) The very use of language itself constitutes a magical act- we create images and vision in other people, and we influence others every time we speak.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
That was very strange because without knowing anything about spiritualism the first book i ever read was by jacob boehme. This was about the time of my out of body experience and the monk, mind you i also thought i could control the weather so ill try not to dwell to much. Thanks for link.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Kutulu,
93
93 is important to a number of concepts through qabaalistic methods. a couple of the most importtant numeration of words into numbers is the greek word agape (love) and thelema (will). thus by evoking the 93 curent, i make it clear as to where i’m coming from, and to others that know that aspect of qaballah. http://kaabapublications.co.uk/PUBLISHED%20MATERIAL2.htm is one approach
93 93/93
Andrew
January 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
This is just as tim was saying the other day about similarities and common roots, in celtic mythology 9 is represented by nine berries on a twig. Dante tells his muse beatrice that nine is the number of the goddess because its square root is three(as the ‘trinity above’) in synodic lunar months its the length of pregnancy and in solar years its the time between maximum and minimum risings and settings of the moon. Its also the same amount of ‘poor knights of christ’ that dwelled under solomans temple. I thought nine was the moon but love its all the same.Thats one more for me to add so thanks for link andrew.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
My own use of the word is one loosely based on it’s latin derivation occultus, meaning secret, or hidden. I’m using the term in the title of the directory I’m compiling - the 2006 Occult Authors Market. Under the umbrella of things “occult” come shamanism, magick, witchcraft, vodou, santeria, candomble, nahualli sorcery, etc.