Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thelema/Peer review/Magick

Magick is a poorly constructed article; it is a major topic and deserves a much better treatment. This is an opportunity to discuss how we can improve it. This article needs to be made distinct from the Magic (paranormal) article, which is more general. As such, it should be an in-depth examination of Crowley's theories of magick (since it was he who brought the -k version into modern thinking), as well as how his work has inspired other systems.

I think the first thing to talk about is structure. The intro is unclear and needs to be made more general-friendly. Other possible sections are:

History of the term and concept?
Forms of magick (e.g. evocation, divination, consecration, eucharistic, etc)
Schools of magick (e.g. Goetia, Enochian, Abramelin, etc)
Criticism section for (referenced) dissent?

Please add your voice to this discussion. Thank you. –Frater5 (talk/con) 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to leave out discussions of non-Thelemic magical theories. At the most, I think we might briefly discuss how Thelemic models differ from, say, Wiccan or Chaos theories, but then refer the reader to articles on those models for more information. If we don't do this then I fear that we will either lose our way in a subject that we could write a book about, or be forced to oversimplify drastically.

I agree that the article should focus on magical forms that are prevelent within Thelema. However, a brief mention of how it has evolved and been borrowed would be good NPOV. –Frater5 (talk/con)

Would "History of the term and concept" include a discussion of the intimate relationship between Magick and the True Will in the Thelemic model? Or would that do better in a section entitled "Thelemic Magickal Theory?" Or perhaps there should be a separate section, after History but before Theory, entitled "Magick and the True Will." Thoughts on that?

I was thinking of how the basic concept of magick has appeared in history...e.g. with Dee, Solomon, etc., leading to HGD and Crowley. The idea is to show that the basic notions that Crowley used were historically based. –Frater5 (talk/con)

I'm with you on the other two points. And I agree that examining the historical roots of Thelemic Magick is an excellent idea. If I were doing it I would want to distinguish though between mythic roots (such as Solomon, the Templars, and the Rosicrucians) and documentable roots. For that latter I'd probably start with Hermetic Philosophy/Magic, Medieval grimoires (with particular attention to the Key of Solomon and Abramelin), Agrippa, the Kabbalah as it impacted gentile mysticism, then the Rosicrucian revival, Alchemy, Dee, Levi, the Golden Dawn, and finally Crowley. We'd also want at least a brief treatment of the Eastern antecedents, especially Tantra and Yoga.

As I hear you describe it, I can easily see the history section becoming huge (too big for this article). Perhaps we should offer a brief synopsis with a plan to write a "History of Magick" article? –Frater5 (talk/con)

In addition to all of that though, I don't think a discussion of Thelemic Magick could be attempted without touching on the Will. I'm leaning toward giving a separate section to "Thelemic Magick and the Will," because the concept is so central. But it COULD be included in either the history section or the theory section.

Speaking of theory, would you want to touch on the relationship of Magick to the Great Work? It seems important, since Crowley defines "black" and "white" magick by the degree to which they hinder and help the Great Work respectively. On the other hand I can see that such a discussion would be philosophically fraught and might generate a lot of disagreement.

OK, I believe I'm officially rambling now.Psuliin 00:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind that there are pages that already cover these issues in detail, including True Will, Thelemic mysticism, and The Great Work. The Magick article is the final puzzle piece in this series, and should focus on thaumaturgy as much as possible. Perhaps we could offer a brief summary of the Thelemic mysticism article to show how magick fits within the big picture? –Frater5 (talk/con)

Finally, what form do you see "dissent" taking? I can see the skeptical mode (this is all just superstition), the counter-religious mode (this is all devil-worship), the non-Thelemic occult mode (this is why my magickal model is better), or the intra-Thelemic disputation mode (this is misrepresenting Thelemic Magick; here's a better way to describe it). But I'm not sure what role I can see for any of those in an article of this type. Could you explain further? Psuliin 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Not sure...I suppose there will be people who will argue with any premise as it is presented. This way, by offering a dissent section, it gives it a place to reside. However, if no criticism is forthcoming, I'd be happy to forego it. –Frater5 (talk/con)