Power of Magick?

Sure, Brian. The information came from “The Field” by Lynne McTaggart, Harper Collins, New York, NY. 2002. pp. 154 – 156; and from “Physics of the Soul,” by Amit Goswami, Hampton Roads Publishing, Charlottesville, VA. 2001. pp. 35 – 40. The second experiment is described in Goswami’s book in some detail; it is also referred to in McTaggart’s work, but I can’t find the page number at the moment. And, in fact, when writing that post, I copied and pasted a chunk from my current book, so I suppose I could cite ME!

I agree that EM phenomenon are grossly underrated in studies of human physiology. I also agree that EM fields theoretically have no end and extend throughout the universe. However, classical physics now sees all energy exchanges in terms of particle transmissions (with the possible exception of gravity, which is a bending of space-time, but even there it’s possible to describe effects in terms of “gravitons.”) Such particle transmissions are limited by the speed of light. The key factor in long-distance EM effects is, of course, the inverse-square law, with EM fields becoming rapidly so weak that any effect they have on a target is completely swamped by nearer, stronger fields.

The recent QED experiments suggest that distance is NOT a factor, nor is shielding. Some even suggest that the speed of light is not a factor (I believe that was demonstrated by the Italian proof of Bell’s Theorem as few years ago.) Quantum nonlocality seems to be the only way to account for this.

Re. Kirlian photography, I’m not familiar with Watkins/Bickel’s book, Bruce, but I’ve heard this argument elsewhere. I do NOT believe Kirlian photography represents the aura or psychic potential, necessarily, but it seems to be more than a function of skin conductivity. I’ve seen Kirlian photographs of a cut leaf and—I believe it was a salamander that was missing a tail. In both cases, the missing part was clearly outlined in light. This appears to be a common observation with Kirlian technique and is not explainable by moisture on the subject. Other studies show intense bursts of energy from a healer’s hands and fingers when he exerts his will. Now, I concede that those moments could include an increase in moisture on the skin—maybe. (I notice nothing of the sort when giving Reiki, but perhaps the effect is vanishingly small subjectively.) Another study of the healing phenomenon—again, this is the McTaggart book—put healers inside a faraday cage with sensors on the subject and on the wall. The recordings demonstrated that bursts of electricity—sometimes over 60 volts—were emitted by the healers’ bodies while they were giving treatments. These bursts did not correlate with any movements or special efforts, but did appear related to their mental focus during the session. My guess is that the Kirlian photographs, in this instance, are recording a genuine increase in electrical potential or current NOT associated with skin conductivity or other background test conditions. At the very least, sweaty hands are not the sole factor here.

And, finally, to get back on The Fool’s topic. There is a genuine danger in the redefinition of terms to conform with the perception of objective reality. By redefining the answer to a question, we risk losing track of the original question. For example—in the history of alchemy, the original stated purpose was to transform base metal to gold. Along the way, this was redefined as meaning a quest to transform the alchemist himself. Eventually, today, the redefinition stated that alchemists were only interested in transforming themselves psychologically, and that the lead-to-gold bit was purely to enlist the financial support of kings and princes.

There’s a lot of truth in that. Modern alchemy, certainly, focuses on psychological transformation, using various terms and processes derived from Medieval writings as metaphor. But we shouldn’t forget that, on an objective historical basis, the alchemists WERE, for the most part, trying to turn lead into gold!
A number of recent authors have tried to state that, similarly, all magic is aimed not at effecting objective change in reality, but in psychologically inducing subjective change or in effecting personal psychological and emotional transformation.

Poppycock. Most magical systems of which I have any knowledge do emphasize the need for first effecting transformation within the magician, true, in order to make the magician a clear channel and to determine his “true will,” to use Crowley’s term. But the effects they seek—promoting prosperity or bringing in more money, healing, changing the weather . . . these are primarily objective physical effects. True, they can have psychological aspects. By increasing my confidence I can subliminally affect other people, create an air of prosperity, and thereby create more opportunities to make more money. But . . . what of the various studies at hospitals that demonstrate that magical healing practices, prayer, distant healing, and other improbabilities have tremendous, demonstrable, and measurable effect? In most such studies, the patients and the attending physicians and nurses were not aware they were part of an experiment, so psychological factors could be ruled out. And yet the “treated” subjects time after time showed fewer post-op infections, shorter recovery time, less use of pain medication, fewer return visits to the hospital, fewer doctor visits, less time on ventilators, and a greater degree of subjective feelings of health and well-being when compared with control groups.

You’re right. There IS no difference between the effects of pagan practices and prayer. They both work, and they’ve both been experimentally verified! A number of studies have been conducted purely with Christians and the physical effect of prayer. Others have emphasized New Age techniques, or a mix of the two. No difference!

As to the part about moving mountains . . . well, magical effects work through natural processes. Answered prayer and answered magical ritual, more times than not, manifest themselves through what appears to be coincidence. There also seem to be several governing laws of an almost physical nature at work. The degree that a magical outcome is successful seems to depend:
  • On the amount of energy expended [which includes the skill, focus, desire, belief, and number of the magician(s).]
  • On the time allowed for the outcome to be manifested.
In other words, the better-trained and focused you are magically, the less time it takes to effect a given physical outcome. The less trained and focused, the more time required. The bigger the effect in physical terms, the more time AND effort is required.

I’ve never known anyone to move a mountain magically. I HAVE known people who moved small objects through focused will and intent. I would not say that it was impossible for a magician (or for prayer) to move a mountain given sufficient power, skill, and time.

Of course, I’d also have to wonder—and this could be seen as ducking the issue—why I needed to move a mountain in the first place. Simply to prove that it can be done doesn’t seem like reason enough to expend that much effort! Creating physical magical effects is extraordinarily draining. I hate to think of what shape I’d be in if I DID manage to move one!

It may be fair to say--albeit a bit simplistically--that to move a mountain with magic would require the same energy as it would to move it with dynamite and bulldozers. I say "simplistic" because there are so many twisty angles to the question. For example . . . if I try to move a mountain with magic, maybe I just up and levitate it . . . yeah, right . . . but maybe, too, the energy I exert somehow influences a decision made in a corporate boardroom somewhere to buy that patch of land and bulldoze it flat for a shopping mall. Coincidence? Or magic?

Ah, but there's another reason NOT to want to move that mountain in the first place! We have way too many malls, and not nearly enough mountains!
Thanks for the long replies, Bill - obviously I really need to explore the entire issues of Will and Magick much more thoroughly.

In one sense, it is a shame that I'm in a stage of life where I'm not able to "tune in" very readily anymore - dealing with the daily pressures of a young family (2 kids, age 4 and 2, and a third on the way for March) drains and distracts entirely. I feel I have little energy and focus to work with at the moment.

Next time my family goes off to visit relatives on the Isle of Man (possibly not until next Summer, now) I'll try to be reminded of these issues - then I will have time and space to focus on a process of communion. Likely I'll get an answer to something, but as experience teaches, it may be an entirely different question that is answered. :)

Btw - a quick point about the EM fields and distance - certainly quite true. However, we cannot ignore the possibilities raised by the concept of Fractal Geometry. In simple terms, even the weakest field lines are still capable of creating a "butterfly effect" under the right conditions.

As field carriers are effectively subatomic particles - at least for EM, strong and weak nuclear force (the jury still seems uncertain on gravitons) - then I suspect that's where our different perspectives merge into a wider theory. After all, I'm not sure that quantum effects can be viewed in terms of "separate" or "individual" particles, as often seems the case in the science literature. They need viewing in the wider context of the researches of high-energy physics - in this instance, that electrons are not simply isolated particles, but field carriers for EM. My point is that quantum effects on field carriers should translate into specific field effects on the macro-level. (It's harder to discuss the other forces, as EM is so well studied and understood and much more accessible in terms of macro effects).

As before, I know my own ideas on EM will be over-stated, but they expose new concepts, and connect ideas together not ordinarily connected. Therefore it's a necessary part of wider dynamic process to be partially incorrect, to help inspire those who follow to better answers. Also - EM fields only play a smaller part of a wider set of ideas I'll be forwarding, so I've plenty of other matieral to shore up the weaker side. :)

Btw - a great book I'd like to recommend is "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose - the chair of Maths at Cambridge, I believe. Primarily, he's arguing against Artificial Intelligence, but he does so by taking a round trip through the implications of mathemathical and physical theory. This isn't the usual "Hawkins-esque" exploration of Cosmology, but instead of the mathematical fabric of reality itself. There's a lot of maths in it, but he explains concepts with the written word, and how they apply. I found it very inspiring in certain areas, and would highly recommend it to you - see if you can find some otherwise hidden connections between the concepts you're dealing with. Or has synchronicity already addressed this issue? :)
Yes, like so much else in quantum theory, everything depends on how you look at it--particle or wave? Field or particle exchange? Micro or macro? The answer seems to generally be "Yes."

Yes, synchronicity strikes again. I've read Penrose. I saw what he was driving at, I think, but felt his parameters were too narrowly focused. Maybe I missed something? My personal belief is that consciousness is essentially a quantum effect. The presence of 50 nm microtubules in our cells--especially in the neurons--seems to support the idea that there is a quantum process at work. If so, this breaks us out of the Newtonesque paradigm of the brain as a complex but purely physical machine, and opens the possibility of defining free will as an aspect of quantum probabilities. I find this tremendously exciting.

I agree with Penrose that we won't build a conscious computer simply by making a very fast, very powerful supercalculator. Once we learn how to build a computer using quantum processes, however (and I believe I read recently that just that has been announced by a team in England?), we may well be on the way both to understanding how consciousness works, and to the creation of self-aware machines.

Good point about chaos effect in weak EM fields. I'll add the point that in so far as fields can interfere with one another--in the sense of interference patterns--even an extremly weak field could, theoretically, interact at a distance with another field. I question whether the magnet holding up the shopping list on my kitchen refrigerator is interacting to any significant degree with the magnetic field of a quasar ten billion light years from here, but, hey, you never know!

And in quantum nonlocal terms, there's nothing crazy about the idea at all!

Quick side question for you, Brian. I started a thread the other day in Science and Philosophy about creation and the mind of God. I'm looking for some specific research information there, and was wondering if folks on this board might be able to help. However, the post seems to have vanished. Did you move it? Or did I screw up in the posting?

My main interest in Penrose wasn't his overall argument - excepting that it essentially states that there's something major missing in our understanding of how reality works - as much as the areas he takes the reader through. I'm separated from my notes at the moment, but his commentaries regarding non-Euclidean space I found particularly fascinating.

As for Chaos applied to EM fields - amazing to think that the moment you move that fridge magnet, you could implode a star. ;)

The thread referred to is still present - simply pushed down a little as Susma was replying to many topics the other day (still not read all the replies yet) - if you still don't see it, here it is:


I don't have an answer personally, but I'm about to visit some old online Christian friends, and I'll mention the topic while I'm there.
Yea, bill - too many malls, too few mountains. But what if we moved the mountain onto a mall. That would help....(of course, after removing all the people)
If I may return to the original argument for a moment: if Magic of some form does exist (as in that our minds and consciuosness can shape material reality), then what is the solution to the Randi-esque criticism that psychics and magicians should therefore be able to produce winning lottery numbers at will?

By the current argument of this thread, it should be possible.

My earlier objections would make it an irrelevant objection - unless a person is shaped by the universe to win a lottery, then no one else will be able to interfere and prevent that particular choice of numbers at that particular event in time.

If anyone wishes to explore this...?
Ahh yes, but the opposing forces are high there as well. If I exert my energy to pick the winning lottery number (effectively willing that that combination of balls is picked), there's millions of other people opposed to that - and even if they're not actively willing it, their passive opposition is sufficient counter. That removes the pre-destination need of your counter - there's sufficient chaos/inertia in the situation because there's enough people.
Wonderful point, Brian. I was using that very point in the current book--there's some major synchronicity going down here. But if this magic stuff works, why aren't more witches hitting the lottery? The story I just related in the final chapter is true. I had a dear freind who was also a powerful witch. She got to wondering the same thing--why wasn't it possible to use her powers to win the lottery? So she did a ritual, then set out to buy the winning ticket.
And you're going to leave us hanging, Bill? When is the publication date so we can hear the rest of the story?

.... Bruce
Oops. Sorry. I was typing away and the message suddenly posted itself. Not sure what happened. Singers must have flipped

But, ahem, to continue. My friend went to a nearby convenience store to buy a ticket. The ticket machine was broken. She went to another store a few miles away. They were out of tickets. I believe she said she visited six stores in a row, getting farther and farther away from home, and every one was either out of tickets or the machine was down. She finally, as she put it, got the message.

Now, the synchronicity inherent in six stores in a row unable to produce a lottery ticket suggests--strongly--that something other than chance was happening here, that, in fact, reality was being seriously bent. Not in the magician's favor, obviously, but there IS something paranormal going on.

Bruce, my understanding of the "many opposing forces" idea is that the sum total of all of those forces and different beliefs would result in an outcome indistinguishible from random chance. Total chaos, or white noise, if you like. If that were completely true, there would NEVER be any synchronous events that suggest successful magic. And the universe wouldn't have to fiddle so conspicuously with six convenience stores in Ohio. It also suggests that a strong, well-trained, and well-focused mind could still bring order ouit of chaos and produce a significant effect. Only if two people were actively working on opposite results, knowingly, would the case you state arise . . . I think. My opinion, anyway. [And, it should be stated in passing, the fourth commandment for the magician is "to be silent," an injunction in part declared because boasting about what you've just done magically invites contrary and negative thoughts that can complicate things terribly, and even undo your work.]

My take on it goes like this:

I, as do many witches, believe in reincarnation. I believe that each of us, between incarnate lives, spends some time (if that term has meaning on the Other Side!) planning certain aspects of the next life. We do this with a metaphysical eye toward what we can learn, how we can grow, how we can develop spiritually in that life. Our next life is not planned out in exacting detail, I don't think, but I do believe that the general tone of that life is set, and that there are certain crisis points to move us along in one direction or another, designed so that if we miss one decision point, we'll be faced with it again soon after.

How would your life change, Brian, if someone handed you fifty million dollars? Or pounds, rather?

Sure, we can all say, with great sincerity, that it wouldn't REALLY change us . . . but just the fact that we no longer need to scrabble around in the dirt trying to make ends meet, that we would be free to hand out a million or two to other deserving friends and relatives . . . that we wouldn't need any longer to struggle. Can't speak for you guys, but MY life's path would be enormously altered by that event, even if it did nothing to alter my normally surly disposition.

My friend has a nice house, a good if stressful job, lots of dear friends. It's trite to say she doesn't NEED fifty million pounds, but I do believe her life would have been drastically altered had she done so.

So I propose that we, ourselves, make the key decision points that confront us in life; if we're in danger of going off-track at some point, something--call it our higher self, our spirit guardians, the Divine, whatever--acts to short circuit things and keep us on track.

Does that rule out magic? Certainly not. My experience, repeatedly, is that it DOES work. I've not won a million dollars, nor made a candle light itself--yet--and possibly never will. [And yes, I have tried!] I DO work spells for prosperity, with results that seem to keep the money I need flowing in as I need it. I posted elsewhere my story about the magically invoked check for $100.00.

Many magic traditions insist that it's not good to be greedy or ask too much. I personally feel that idea runs a little too close for my liking to the notion of a malevolent deity standing watch over us, ready to smack us down if we get out of line. I don't think it works that way.

The first and greatest work any magician is called upon to do is to learn what makes him or her tick. What makles me as I am? What is holding me back from a full realization of my own power? Where am I going spiritually? The Crowley-ceremonialists call this the Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel, and also refer to the need to find your True Will. Evidently, my friend's True Will was to NOT win fifty million dollars.

Doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try. The fact that we find ourselves on this path, with magic as an option, means that it is a valid tool that we should experiment with. Winning the jackpot might happen someday. In the meantime, we can use magic to make certain our day-to-day needs are met in a timely fashion and, truthfully, what more do we need?

The tough part is that we need to have absolute belief in our own abilities to produce reliable magical effects, and we sabotauge ourselves if we think that it MIGHT work, maybe, if the gods aren't against it. Use of divination before working a spell can guide us as we craft it, letting us know if there's something going on here that we're not consciously aware of. Seeking our True Will is another, a means of bringing ourselves to a point of working WITH the universe, rather than trying to overcome it.

And . . . who knows? I might win the lottery yet. Assuming I ever go out and buy a ticket.
I like bruce's comment - never thought of that. :)

Bill does certainly make an important point about the effect it could have in actually winning that ticket, though. I have it strongly in my head that my particular currents on life's stream will not allow such an event for myself - as if there are certain character-building traits I must develop, that cannot occur with too easy a life.

HOWEVER, on saying that, some people may indeed be aware that their life current is heading towards such a win. My dad used to often mention that we'd do a certain thing "when we win the pools" - the pools being like a form of sports lottery we had here in the UK before Lotto. And he always used to say it in such a way that "when" seemed like an inevitability. And do you know what...

...he was right, as well. £1.3 million to a syndicate of 6 in 1995, that included my mum and grandad as well. All gone now, my parents divorced, and my grandad about to use his share to bury himself and put my nana in a home for a good few years.

I feel constantly aware of a sense of my own future - or is it possible future? There are certain things I tell my own children, about a very comfortable financial future we have. There's a strong sense of certainty. It's hard to communicate the accompanying sense of destiny. And it's very much because of that, that I personally have such a hard time accepting any real significant reference to magic changing reality. That would imply that I have 'no destiny', and there's too much here pointing against that. Not an assured destiny, mind you - I could sit on my arse and live a miserable life. There is room for choice, but it's a choice of current, not river. Magic seems to imply being able to change the course of those rivers, and that seems such an odd idea - like moving mountains.

Anyway...I did actually dream once of a winning lottery number. Was supposed to be worth around £30 million after a triple roll-over. Perhaps it's for some future event - but if so, I think I'm supposed to give it all away. Funny - sometime's I feel I know aspects of my own future - but the possibilities are intriging. The future as a mystery is very satisfying - those moments when I thought it most predicatble, life become most boring. :)

And, anyway, I don't trust dreams. :)

Hm...a late ramble. Goodnight. :)
I think magic/magick/magik is very real on several planes.
There is the affecting the thoughts of another or self (mental)
There is the affecting the surroundings within this plane of existence (physical)
There is the affecting the life of another or self (spiritual)

To those who play with Oija boards for example, with no training, and no concept of potential consequence, magik can be very dangerous (sort of like giving the keys to a child of three and placing them behind the wheel of a semi).

Magic/k is stepping into the lost science/art of Alchemy (there is strong evidence for this pseudo scientific practice, even in western holy books). And like any lost art, time, caution, and practice are required before presenting it to the world (there are many many rules that have been forgotten, concerning the craft).

I for example, brought up in a Celtic Christian sea faring family, view magic/k not as a ruse, or as devil work, but as a sudden low pressure atmospheric condition, or a sea quake that can suddenly take still waters and send them into tidalwaves.

My grandfather explained it to me this way. "Every man, woman and child has the power of the Sun (star), contained within. Properly channeled and guided, that power can positively affect the entire Universe...but without guidance, or proper channeling, you have an atomic bomb.

We think we are in control, until we are not. And there is no warning before our loss of control occurs, and no time to defend against the forces unleashed.

We don't remember the rules.

We are in the image and likeness of God (and I presume have some of the power because of that), but we do not know all the rules.

In my family, the potential for magic/k is strong within the women. The ability of discernment has been graced to the men. The men never tell the women NO, only "What are you willing to sacrifice in the process of figuring this out? And can you live with the results the rest of your life?"

I'm not talking kitchen witchery here.

If I were one who wished to "figure out" magic/k, I would form a religious system, much like the Roman/Orthodox Churches, complete with monastaries, rectories, and convents. I would separate the women from the men, and have them both swear to celibacy, poverty, and seclusion from the general populace. Not as punishment, but rather for removing all distractions from their minds, hearts and bodies, thus allowing them to "grow" in mastery of their faith.

How long would it take??? Don't know, it's been two thousand years, and the major churches still don't have it right...
" I think magic/magick/magik is very real on several planes.
There is the affecting the thoughts of another or self (mental)
There is the affecting the surroundings within this plane of existence (physical)
There is the affecting the life of another or self (spiritual)

To those who play with Oija boards for example, with no training, and no concept of potential consequence, magik can be very dangerous (sort of like giving the keys to a child of three and placing them behind the wheel of a semi)."

It is Ouija board <admin snip>, not oija unless that is the British spelling.

What is with the Magick spelling? It reminds me of a King of the Hill episode where young Bobby gets involved with a group of yound warlocks. Bobby tells his Dad he is going out to play "cards" with the guys. Hank, his Dad who was a deep fear his son may be homosexual thinks this is great not knowing they were actually tarot cards he was "playing" with.

A pimply faced kid who worked at the video store introduced Bobby into the group or cult or coven. He was a grandmaster 22nd level wizard or something and claimed he performed "magick" carefully explaining that was "magick spelled m-a-g-i-c-k and not m-a-g-i-c" as if it made any difference. The fact the kid was then told to mop the floors only added to the idea that those who claim to have magical powers-don't.
Namaste ngnm,

magik with a "k" was coined by Aleister Crowley to distinguish his "magik" from the simple side show illusions that were called "magic".

i'm sure that we have some posters that can fill out this bit of information for you, should you so choose.
I hate typo errors

"It is Ouija board Oh little inexperinced grasshopper, not oija unless that is the British spelling...."

My bad, I was typing too fast. Infact OUIJA comes from putting two words together. OUI (French for yes) and JA (German for yes).

And I disagree about those not having magic. Everyone has the potential, just not everyone tries to develop it.

As far as the spelling Magick, I read that from a Wiccan named Amber K, who stated the "k" in magick was added to show the difference between stage tricks and using natural forces to effect willed change, often changes in our own perceptions or consciousness.

She also states that misusing magick can bring penalties far greater than the consequences of the misuse on the material plane.

Once again, I apologize for the misspelling.
My apologies, Quahom1 - the comment from NGNM shouldn't have got through.
Everyone's thoughts are priceless

I did take your post seriously my friend...That is why I answered as I did. I just knew there was no offense meant.

I don't know everything, and will never claim to. I would expect to be put to rights, if I am out of line, or off kiltre, just like the next guy who wants to know all, yesterday.

I have my expertise, and everyone else has theirs. That is what make's life fantastic in its variety.

I, Brian...I do have a very thick skin. However, I appreciate that you are vigilant in your endeavors to ensure clean posts. Rest assured I found nothing offensive about anything posted in response to my thoughts.

In many ways I am a "young grasshopper" :D
At the end of the day, it's very hard to read tone into the written word. Where members have experience of interacting with each other, they can make a fairly decent judgement of the other's intentions. However, for newer members it means it can become far too easy for miscommunication to occur - and offence be taken.

Sometimes Nogodnomasters uses a sharp wit that I fear can cut unintentionally. :)