Don’t Ask How and Why

I realize I have pages on this very blog that attempt to cover how magic functions. I further concede that I often, within an article, discuss why we do certain things within our work, which is fine but sometimes I also delve into why this begats that in technical, metaphysical terms.

Here’s the important thing to note about the above examples: I admit, usually right on the spot, that such considerations are merely conceptual in nature and useful for aiding in our paradigm building and in our hands-on work through visualization and modeling that helps us focus energy.

Conceptual frameworks that help us imagine and visualize or functional models that help us move energy in a meaningful way are the only productive uses of the “how” and “why” questions regarding magic.

Why do I say this? Because for one thing such intellectual tactics are useful; they enhance our results.

The second reason is more poignant: Asking questions we can’t hope to answer is generally a bad play in the pursuit of knowledge.

We can never intellectually satisfy questions of how does magic operate on the fundamental level or why exactly does this magical input produce that magical output. This is the case because we are dealing with the unseen, unknown, and unknowable by definition.

We can talk about the ether, the astral plane, elemental currents, how will moves and shakes these things and how threads of fate or divine providence and all that jazz work in such a way as to cause this effect and prevent that outcome and on and on and on…

But we can never, ever prove any of this because we are unable to objectively, as in empirically and definitely identify any of the parts or processes just mentioned, much less point to any mechanisms that drive these conceptual processes.

For these reasons – and be sure to get this – magic and an explanation thereof will FOREVER remain unscientific, because a thing can only be scientifically understood through the positive identification of mechanisms and the provable, demonstrable explanation of cause-effect relationships.

That’s it. Period.

Some people don’t like this fact, but it remains a fact. We cannot abruptly take it on ourselves to dictate to the method of science what its rules shall be, we can only either play along or sit the game out.

In the case of explaining magic scientifically, we must stay on the bench.

We can explain the art and its processes logically to a degree but with the caveat that none of what we suggest can be proven. We can’t measure parts or processes with standard physical units nor establish a definite relationship between any alleged event or substance and the observable outcome of our work.

We can make hypothetical assertions and test them with confidence in reliable, predictable results, but we still cannot show or prove things happen for any of the reasons we might suggest. I can tell you I placed my vision on the astral plane and used will to give it form, then applied elemental currents to densify the form through the ether until it became manifest, but even if my operation produces precisely the result I predict I simply can’t show you any of the processes I just described and frankly I don’t even know myself if they are objectively real.

“How” and “why” are ballbusters if we push too far because neither will ever be truly known and certainly neither can be proven. Hence magic is now and forevermore unscientific.

There ya go, like it or hate it.

Here’s the thing:

I sleep fucking fine with that and I think you should too!

What’s the problem? Are we gonna be upset like the religious folks who wanted to take their religion to the science sandbox and play?

I should hope not. Recalling the Axiom of Inherent Order and Placement, let us accept that all things have their place and there is a place for everything.

Music belongs in band class and choir practice, also on concert stages, etc.

Farm animals belong in the barnyard or the breakfast platter, unless you’re a vegan.

Science belongs in the science classroom, in the lab, and in the ongoing discussion of what’s next and how we’re going to get that done.

Magic belongs in the magical literature, in the lives of all who practice it, in the secret spaces it inhabits and does its work, and in the souls of the initiates who take it with them from life to life as they refine both the Art and themselves along the way.

Pedantic, rambling articles like this probably belong in the recycle bin but for now this one is staying in my blog’s query loop.

Empirical, Pragmatic, Phenomenological

Magic is reliable, predictable, reproducible, and all that jazz. I never said otherwise.

In fact it’s downright empirical, pragmatic, phenomenological, and applicable. Just remember it’s non-canonical and you’re all good, with nothing to prove or defend and no reason to butt heads with the nay-sayers.

Let them doubt. Stay busy with your practice and change the world anyhow.

Favorite0