Does Any1 believe in literal majick?

Like deamons and rituals that actually have a physical effect?

I don't know about demons and such, but many believe that magik can have an effect much in the same way as prayer.
Could magik make things disappear or bend spoons...I doubt it. Could magik alter the energy around you and bring about a change....maybe. Does magik give many of the people who use it a sense of connection with their environment ...yes.


Peace,
BG

Before I can say what it is I believe about majick, first we have to establish the same definition among each other...

In the Meriam-Webster Dictionary, the word "majick" doesn't exist; Instead, they use "magic". The definition associated with this particular spelling of the word has been defined as:
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : ENCHANTMENT
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

As for using "majick" for spelling purposes, this is generally accepted to be different from the word "magic"...Generally, the term "majick" is defined (by paraphrasing) to mean:
"Changing the immediate environment through force of will"

If that's the meaning that most people use to define "majick", it may shock you to realize that everyone performs this type of "majick" on a daily basis & may not even be aware of it!

If I should have the will to post something at ATS, how about I use my computer as the material componant & typing out my words on the keyboard as the ritual to communicate over vast distances? If I should will that I have more light to see by, how about I flip the switch to light up a room? If I will to be transported across town, how about climb into a car & drive it? Doesn't this make ordinary, everyday technology into a type of "majick"?

So, what is *your* paradigm of the modern day world?...

"As for using "majick" for spelling purposes, this is generally accepted to be different from the word "magic"...Generally, the term "majick" is defined (by paraphrasing) to mean:
"Changing the immediate environment through force of will"

Really?
I was under the impression majick was a term coined by Alister Crowley to seperate ritual from tricks.

Yes i believe in magic.

Lets say someone is really powerful in mind and can do amazing things and as i think the mind never dies you could communicate with it somehow and use that energy to do things which could be done by so called magic.

Magic is the connection of 3d to 4d and is revealed in a window open between the two realms.

The only magic that can happen in 3d is high technology.

Majick as defined suggest the ability to do things beyond what is commonplace; all religions site this as a valid consideration in respect to those they revere. As a result, despite the cultural infighting, that is it a part of reality should not be ignored.

God created man in his own image that taken literally taken literally does imply that what is called Majick can be understood as valid.

Some people have pointed out the fact that defining the difference between "Magick" and "Magic" is needed as a first step. This is correct as the two words do in fact mean different things.

Magic=Tricks, Slight of Hand, Illusions, etc. Not Supernatural or having anything to do with Spells or Charms.
Magick=Changing the immediate environment through force of will. This IS the correct term for the Supernatural manifistation of an event.

In "MidnightDStroyer's" examples the problem is including "Action and Will" together. They are two different things where Will is the driving force behind an Action but not the actual action itself.

Will:
1) The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.
2) A desire, purpose, or determination.
3) Deliberate intention or wish.

Magick I think is certainly real and could be thought of similar to what THENEO has pointed to as being High Tech. or Quantum Energy changes of an unfamiliar nature. What I mean by that is Magick and Science (especially Quantum Sciences) both deal in Energy at the most basic and pure levels. More and more advancements in Physics are starting to show how Old Mystic Practices are possible. So the way I see it Magick and Science are just two sides of the same coin and will one day, hopefully, realize they're working toward the same goal but from different directions. A more clear example would be Chemistry and Alchemy both of which are one in the same, including facts & theory, with known methods and methods yet to discover.

Elixers and Potions have become Medicines and Tonics.
Curses and Charms have become Mind-Control and Hypnosis.
Prophets are now Remote Veiwers.

The more I've studied both sides the more I find the similar aspects of both and I do believe as many others will agree that the Supernatural and the Natural will one day match up once we understand the truth.

mojom,

valid point.

in my above comments I should have spelt magic as majick or whatever variant is in vogue these days.

the will which is a tenent of satanism is the control not of oneself (as christanity defines it), but the control over annother.

it is intent and often a form of technology.

satanists greatest power is calling the spirits or entities of other realms to appear in a window between the realms to do their bidding. Their bidding is the indirect influence on a person or thing in this realm.

what we increasingly see as superheroism eg. powers such as in the film X-Men' is more the property of the 4d (which some are transiting to), and other higher realms.

Originally posted by LordOsiris
...majick was a term coined by Alister Crowley to seperate ritual from tricks.

What you say is true...It was a term originally coined by Crowley, but the definition has changed by "common-usage" since that time. In order to have a relevant discussion about the meaning & context of *any* term, we must all be certain that the same "definition" is being used by everyone within the discussion itself.

For my part of the discussion, I merely clarified what the "common definition" is & proceeded with my points from there...It may be a good idea for someone who holds a *different* definition to let us know what definition they're using before continuing the discussion. That way, at least everybody know what "base" that everybody else is working from.

IMO, it seems that Mojom has simply put a more precise point on my own general statment. If you think about it, what is really the difference if, one wills to know what time it is, he decides to look at a watch, build a clock using a potato as the battery, look at the position of the sun or stars, or even if he "psychically taps into the cosmic flow"...The will has been fulfilled but the only difference is the "ritual" used to realize that will.

Originally posted by Toltec
Majick as defined suggest the ability to do things beyond what is commonplace

But then you have to consider how the qualifier-term of "commonplace" interacts with the definition of "majick". In Biblical times, the Wright Brothers' airplane would have been considered "majick" simply because of being "uncommon"...By the same termonology, it might be considered as majick today because that form of air transport is just as "uncommonplace" in the days of supersonic jet flyers as it was back in Biblical times. By the same token, using the term "commonplace", a donkey-drawn wagon would be considered as "majick" in modern America, but would be a common form of transport in many third-world countries, even today.

So when you add a term like "commonplace" to the definition of "majick", you also need to establish the parameters of the term "commonplace" as well. What is considered as "commonplace" is very dependant upon any particular person's place & time.

Organized Religion is a good one for not being able to define themselves to the general public very well...

Actually, for the most part the term Majick is often related to demonology while Magic is considered entertainment. Due to such issues I have often in the past regarded the word Majic as a potential middle ground and alternative, easily recognized as neither and as such relevant to some alternative.

MD one of the techniques related to testing if someone was a witch was to place them in water, deep enough to cause drowning and bound hand and foot. If they could float then they were witches, if not they were exonerated.

Of course they drowned as a result of the time they were left under water but interestingly enough, with respect to the instructions in this procedure. If a person had the capacity to meditate to an extent they could slow there heart rate down substantially (as in respect to a sage) they could actually survive.

As a result a person accused of being a witch could be let go, if and only if, they proved they were trained in the arts we both understand.

I agree that any technology sufficiently advanced can be defined as Majic but would also site that in respect to the development of Chi' perhaps such definitions are not withstanding.

Any thoughts?

Ok, well as far as definitions go here is what Dictionary.com has. (Links only to save space)
Magic:
dictionary.reference.com...
Magick:
dictionary.reference.com...

Personally I using those definitions above is worse than our previously established ones. Magic is given 10 interpretations which is way too many. Magick is given 1 interpretation which is so broad it could include just about anything. So "No help there" in either case!! I think we'll be better off in terms of this debate stick with what we have.

one of the techniques related to testing if someone was a witch was to place them in water, deep enough to cause drowning and bound hand and foot. If they could float then they were witches, if not they were exonerated.

Of course they drowned as a result of the time they were left under water but interestingly enough, with respect to the instructions in this procedure. If a person had the capacity to meditate to an extent they could slow there heart rate down substantially (as in respect to a sage) they could actually survive

That technique of "Witch Verification" was always amusing to me for it's misuse of logic. Monty Python would back me up as well as some might remember the whole "Witch is a Duck" method. Now with Toltec's addition for survival of drowning by meditation, it's even more funny to me. Ironicly since the control of one's body through meditation would certainly (by old world standards) be "Witchcraft" and yet they would be the only people to survive such a test and be innocent of the charges is true justice for using faulty logic in the first place.

What I would like to add into this though is aside from unclear definition there seems to be the automatic inclusion of "Demonic", "Satanic" or simply "Diety (good or bad" summoning. Magick (Magic) is not and should not be thought of that way to truely understand it. Anyone can practice magick without following any Religious practice, they are simply considered to be "Magi", "Sorcorer", "Wizard", etc. Now obviously certain Religions have their Corrisponding practices of Magick but none can claim ownership of it. For example Magick Ritual, Techniques, and Practice will change from Voodoo, Wiccan, Pagan, Alchemy, Christian, etc. Even by cultrue such as Egyptian, Chinese, Scottish, Indian, etc. So while magick(magic) may include type of summoning, there are many different types of Gods, Dieties, Demons, Spirits, etc that can be summoned, or no summoning whatsoever and still be Practice of Magick.

through common contemporary usage, majick, or majik is real world, actual, functional magic. magic is fairy tale style stuff or slight of hand.
so says the dictionary of billybob.

Originally posted by Toltec
...in respect to the development of Chi'

This is why I included the phrase, "psychically taps into the cosmic flow" earlier...Whether you call it Chi or psionics or a form of mysticism, they are merely different ways to describe the *method* of using "majick" to tell what time it is (according to the example I mentioned).

It's *because* there are so many different terms (& definitions of those terms) that people use interchangably is why I think we should all decide on some kind of "common ground" so that we can understand each other better.