Witchcraft

In a word; yes.

Aleister Crowley, the celebrated 20th century mountaineer, chess master, not-bad poet, mediocre artist and author of quite a few books on Magick (he preferred th older spelling, to distinguish his activities from mere stage magic) defined Magick as "The Art and Science of causing Change to occur in Conformity with the Will", in his definitive 1929 book, "Magick in Theory and Practice." Many later commentators have added the words "in consciousness" after "Change", but it's quite clear, from the context, that Crowley meant actual measurable change in the physical universe. And if we weren't paying attention the first time, on the next page he gives us a secondary definition; "Every intentional act is a Magickal act."

Again later commentators have misunderstood this, saying, well, surely all human acts are intentional acts. But then along came B.F.Skinner and the behaviourists, who claimed that there is no such thing as an intentional act; all human acts are conditioned responses to external stimuli. Behaviourism isn't very popular nowadays, but its basic thesis is generally true; I would say; perhaps the majority of human acts are indeed the result of conditioning, programming or hypnosis (which all seem to mean essentially the same thing). Crowley would have pretty much agreed, I think; that most human acts are not intentional; but that intentional acts are possible - just very, very difficult. Magick, then, consists of a set of techniques for overcoming our normal, conditioned state, and acting with intention.

These techniques include, but are not limited to, meditation, intense visualisation, self-hypnosis, ritual, ingesting certain substances - and, of course, work in the physical world. If you want to know more, read the book and practice some of the exercises. It should be noted, though, that Magick doesn't always succeed in the way we might hope, any results that do occur are usually very subtle, and your average annoying "skeptic" will insist that the results are due to pure chance. Occasionally, though, results can be quite spectacular - as I can testify from my own experience. Nothing like sparks flying out of your fingertips, but occasional surprising results.
 
It might be useful to add that Crowley also proposed, in the very next sentence after giving his definition of a magickal act IIRC, the concrete example of blowing one's nose.

Crowley was a troll of the highest order, who could give practical lessons to today's internet pranksters and starters of trouble.

Supporters tend to believe that, like trickster mentors and Zen teachers, the man felt the need to shock people out of their conventional worldviews. Detractors favor less sanguine interpretations. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?

To bring the discussion back to the topic at hand, one's opinion of his motives must guide interpretation of his practical example. Does he mean that blowing one's nose is always a magickal act? Or only when the act is fully intentional? Or was Crowley just having a laugh imagining all the exegetic arguments that would arise over his writings?
 
The trial seems to be politically motivated but colonial era laws are being used.

Two men in Zambia are accused of practicing witchcraft and possessing charms intended to harm the country's president.

The trial has become a source of fascination in the southern African nation which reflects a belief in forms of magic and supernatural phenomena that remains in parts of the continent.

Some irritation also exists at a colonial-era law that brands it witchcraft and criminalises it in Zambia.

“I hate that colonial piece of legislation that attempts to outlaw a practice that it does not understand,” said Gankhanani Moyo, a cultural heritage lecturer at the University of Zambia.

He said it fails to consider the nuances of traditional African beliefs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ia-president-hakainde-hichilema-b2703665.html
 
This is a sentence from a review of a play about Suffolk’s 17th-century witch trials, a sentence that really personally resonated with me despite my being male. I wonder if it resonates for others here too:

'Playwright Tallulah Brown explores the link between control of the land and of women’s bodies, depicting a world where a holy man’s prayers and not a woman’s tinctures are the approved form of female pain relief.'

----

Historical background linked below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_St_Edmunds_witch_trials#The_1645_trial
 
Even leaving aside our various personal aspects: there's an entire and often unwritten history in amongst that sentence; not least the commercial motivations behind female expertise and authority being overthrown and consequently assumed by men.

Graham Joyce's novel The Limits of Enchantment is marvellous about this (and more), but in a highly subtle way: his young protagonist has to choose between her 'folk' heritage and the opportunity to become a modern, professional midwife. ~

'The Limits of Enchantment is an intricate, involving dramatisation of a battle in English history that still continues today, just about, although there now seems to be hardly any doubt about the winner: the conflict between folk wisdom and modern science.'

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/jan/15/featuresreviews.guardianreview19

Incidentally, and in light of this thread's actual Witchcraft/Folklore theme, there's a marvellous and evocative sequence in which Joyce describes a hare being chased by hounds or foxes and the hare escapes by 'leaping into the realm of dreams'.
 
Last edited:
Aether Blue said:
It might be useful to add that Crowley also proposed, in the very next sentence after giving his definition of a magickal act IIRC, the concrete example of blowing one's nose.

Crowley was a troll of the highest order, who could give practical lessons to today's internet pranksters and starters of trouble.

Supporters tend to believe that, like trickster mentors and Zen teachers, the man felt the need to shock people out of their conventional worldviews. Detractors favor less sanguine interpretations. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?

To bring the discussion back to the topic at hand, one's opinion of his motives must guide interpretation of his practical example. Does he mean that blowing one's nose is always a magickal act? Or only when the act is fully intentional? Or was Crowley just having a laugh imagining all the exegetic arguments that would arise over his writings?
Click to expand...
I heard Crowley was an evil dude.
 
I will mention this here. It could also go into a dream thread, but I think it shows how much witches are in the mainstream culture.

As a kid, I used to have a reoccurring nightmare in which it would be dusk, almost dark and I would be outside. I would have a creepy feeling come over me and would know that a wicked witch was coming. She always flew from the west. Of course she was in the traditional garb.

I don't know when I saw the Wizard of Oz on tv, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't until I was 9 or 10. Granted, I did read and may have read the Wizard of Oz before then.

But this theme was a reoccurring one of my nightmares.
 
brownmane said:
I will mention this here. It could also go into a dream thread, but I think it shows how much witches are in the mainstream culture.

As a kid, I used to have a reoccurring nightmare in which it would be dusk, almost dark and I would be outside. I would have a creepy feeling come over me and would know that a wicked witch was coming. She always flew from the west. Of course she was in the traditional garb.

I don't know when I saw the Wizard of Oz on tv, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't until I was 9 or 10. Granted, I did read and may have read the Wizard of Oz before then.

But this theme was a reoccurring one of my nightmares.
Click to expand...
Wow. When I was the same age I’d regularly (nightly?) imagine I was riding with the witch on her broom into the land of dreams just as I was crossing over. Not a nightmare though.

Haven’t thought about that in forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top