What is Magic?

[Arthur Emerson]

I hope it proves useful to point out that many people who are advocates of these experiences say that they are beyond language, but we use langauge to point toward them, rather than describe them. For instance when one says "tree" the mental image or such of the physical object is brough to mind. When one says "nirvana" or "enlightenment", what comes to mind? Not a very astute description necessarily, but I hope good enough for others to intuit my point. Also, it is often said that we can say what these experience are not, more than we can say what they are. Also, to break down language a bit, we are looking for the experience not the description of the experience. So when people undeniably partake in the experience, many of them appear to agree that they are beyond language and knowledge, indeed beyond all, yet (fuck!) somehow partaking in all things.

-ae

I had a qabalistic vision so to speak, while I wrote this. The Ain is thought to be the substratum of all and exists before all things, but contains the seed (kether) for all things, which burst forth from the positive-negativity of the Ain's selfhood. Reality, qabalistically, is thought to be the Ain- consciousness partaking in and aware of itself. Our reality, the malkuthian illusions, is but the cast off reflections of the dreaming of this mysterious Ain. Language is one of the tools we use to describe our experience of the Malkutian illusion. Not reality, or experience itself. Charles Peirce calls experience Firstness, that which is, independant of any description. I think these mystical experiences are experiences of Firstness.

I apologize in advance for this ad hoc post. There is enough confusion around me to inhibit my ability to properly construct my thoughts. Anyhow, I hope this is useful to someone.

-ae

[Isis]

"What's  the opposite of sex and death?"
 

Sorry love, I don't belive in oppsoites. Things in the unspeakable world (to steal from Korzybski) have no opposite. what's the opposite, for example, of a table? or of a coyote? It's the concepts in our heads (the thought of a table) that can have opposites. So I don't think those aspects of life have an opposite. If your model of the world does accept opposties, however, some people I've read (if I'm not mistaken, Peter Carrol included) consider sex and death as opposites to each other.

A map is not the territory he?

A lot of territory without map, but no map without territory.

Things in the unspeakable world? Another concept.  Versus which other world and opposite... the speakable. 
Meaning your belief might have it's feet in a hidden opposite, I find that funny.

Question however might arise what one can regard as opposite.
Something that is total different as something else or the other one of a complimentary pair.
Certainly for magical purposes I choose the last.

So has a table an opposite or a coyote?

Both  do.
The table belongs to the inorganic things versus the organic things and both are appearances of matter. The coyote is either male or female and such has an opposite
in his own sort as humans do.   

Are sex and death opposites in my vision?
Yes.

A pair in the dance of Shiva.
Sex and death  both have  a life-sustaining function.
In the food-chain something dies so something else can live.
Main-function of sex to let something else live too.

The opposite of sex and death, seems immortality or infinity to me.
Infinite repetition or the impulse to it.
Or some things in the universe don't die, stop or change.

I think that those opposites lead to  different sort of magic too
depending what the magician sees as true constant.

Change and Repetition. 
Chaos and Order.

Mainpoint:
Magic's nature might be dual.

[Annihilation]

"Magic" has, at least since Neoplatonism, served as an umbrella term for a wide range of techniques/concepts.

Currently telepathy, telekinesis, spirit interaction and others sit under the same umbrella. The techniques/concepts in that umbrella continue to shift. Some will leave the umbrella (as hypnosis, autogenous training and herbalism have), others will enter as occult research progresses.

The categorization of theories and activities as "magical" results from a strictly socio-cultural decision where facts play a relatively minor role. Other societies and cultures have totally different terms more or less similar, but not necessarily anywhere similar to, our own "magic".

To seek for a single, substantial definition implies you expect a singular concept behind everything that has happened to end up - temporarily and locally - under the "magic" umbrella. It may prove difficult to achieve this, and not include all sorts of things not commonly called magic.

[8 Wasps]

Currently telepathy, telekinesis, spirit interaction and others sit under the same umbrella.

As for telepathy and telekinesis, I'd say they fall more under the "psi" umbrella rather than "magic".
I make this distinction cause I find "psi" to be a subset of "magic" with its own interesting peculiarities.

Pure Psi tries to use deep mind faculties without even symbolizing them, wich would be a very
good goal if you manage to reach it.

[Isis]

One of those days the psi - approach will kill me.... just joking.
Mainly because I consider it a very limited  approach.

What we call the senses has an equivalent in our astral body.
Sorry to take refuge to that kind of label, but it seems still a lot better to me then all others.
Speaks at least to the imagination.
As such all that we call psi just comes as activity of the subconscious
or the astral body.

Like Spare says the ID has an eye and a hand.
I would like to add it has an ear too, but general the one eye
and a certain kind of feeling/knowing seems to come connected to the subconscious
and even the unconscious.

If people have a developped astral body or psi does that mean they have become capable of magic?
No. Because most experience their talent as passief and aren't capable to use it by will and therefore not for magic. Few exceptions.
However those that that do get involved in magic have a priceless advantage.