One thing that to me is both delightful and regrettable about Dion Fortune's definition is that it's kind of a dirty trick. I've known people — I'm one of them — who would never have taken magic seriously without the enticement that it's "just" applied psychology, but not all of them go on to develop a healthy respect for the art — just this past Magic Monday, someone posted a link to a guide to demonology for atheopagans.
That said, the basic idea was already present in some of Crowley writings, so the atheopaganism and Chaos Magick would almost certainly have arisen with or without Fortune's influence.
Ultimately I think that the term "magic" is like "supernatural": it's impossible to pin it down without reference to some metaphysical framework. For example, within Christianity, the distinction between the supernatural and the natural is explicit and clear, but from other perspectives the spiritual world is just as much, if not more, a part of Nature as the physical.
Likewise, in a framework such as the Golden Dawn that traces out the flow of manifestation/creation through the planes, magic can perhaps be defined as causing changes on the higher planes that then flow into the lower. But outside that framework, it could take any number of forms.
The core intuition, if there is one, is that magic uses some sort of non-physical forces or forces to cause change. Even that's debatable — JMG has suggested multiple times that science and technology are the magic of the physical world. And probably we could come up with some use of non-physical forces that doesn't count as magic.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Indefinability
Date: 2021-08-27 03:37 pm (UTC)That said, the basic idea was already present in some of Crowley writings, so the atheopaganism and Chaos Magick would almost certainly have arisen with or without Fortune's influence.
Ultimately I think that the term "magic" is like "supernatural": it's impossible to pin it down without reference to some metaphysical framework. For example, within Christianity, the distinction between the supernatural and the natural is explicit and clear, but from other perspectives the spiritual world is just as much, if not more, a part of Nature as the physical.
Likewise, in a framework such as the Golden Dawn that traces out the flow of manifestation/creation through the planes, magic can perhaps be defined as causing changes on the higher planes that then flow into the lower. But outside that framework, it could take any number of forms.
The core intuition, if there is one, is that magic uses some sort of non-physical forces or forces to cause change. Even that's debatable — JMG has suggested multiple times that science and technology are the magic of the physical world. And probably we could come up with some use of non-physical forces that doesn't count as magic.