Hi everyone!
Nowadays we are dealing with a huge number of varieties of magic that it is difficult to count them all. However, the very basic concept of magic has remained unchanged for thousands of years, ever since humans discovered the existence of the spiritual world and mental energy.
Leaving aside the discussions about which of the numerous magic systems is the most effective, one can notice a certain regularity, which this thread will be about (as long as we don't stray too far from the topic).
In my experience, the division between white and black magic is doomed to failure in advance, because we decide whether the ritual is intended to help or destroy. However, when you look at high (ceremonial) magic and low magic, you can see some differences. I immediately point out that this is not a matter of judging which one is better or worse, because we should not approach it that way.
High magic:
- Refers to rituals using magical tools, such as a dagger, chalice, wand, etc.
- Is mainly based on summoning spiritual entities during a ritual, making offerings to them and fulfilling a purpose in the physical world.
- Uses invocations, invocations, making pacts, etc.
Low magic:
- In order to change reality, it is not necessary to immediately summon unknown demons or spirits.
- Mainly uses the energy of the mind to achieve the goal.
- The mage, representing himself and using primarily his own energy resources, makes changes in reality.
These, in a nutshell, are some of the key differences between these types of magic.
Which one is more effective? It all depends on what we want to achieve and what predispositions we have. Each of us must individually decide what is right for us.
Greetings!
- The mage, representing himself and using primarily his own energy resources, brings about changes in reality.
How about, for example, such practices as using birch twigs, herbs and believing in their power, and then performing rituals and "casting spells" based on drawing on one's own energy resources?
I believe that this division between high and low magic is more or less artificial.
It is possible that I am wrong and offend someone with this, but I hope you will explain my embarrassing ignorance in this area.
In my opinion, there is a division between high and low magic, but one would also need to add a category of "middle magicians" (neologism?), who do not fit into this scheme. However, the boundaries between the two would be so fluid that it would be impossible to put them into any concise rule. The main difference between magicians practicing high, "medium" and low magic would be the approach, or possibly the degree of commitment to their practice.
For the former, magic would probably be a way of life, a rule with which to describe all life and everything that happens in the world. One way or another, they would take magic seriously. Low mages, to make sense of it, would have a more nonchalant approach, magic would not occupy most of their thoughts, it would just be cool and useful. I imagine that if one were to ask such a magician how he is successful in his magic practice, he would answer that there are plenty of more interesting subjects. And those "mediums?" They'd be somewhere in the middle, probably could only be described that way for the few cases that can't be easily categorized into one of the other groups - the undecided/temporarily shaken/unaware of many things/mixing many things in unusual ways/chaos mages.
The division between high and low magic is very simplistic, stemming from the natural distinction between the material and spiritual worlds. What drives magic is WILL, but human will does not come out of nowhere - it originates from either matter or spirit. These are the only sources of power in the universe that give dynamism to all human activities, including magic. People often, using one will or the other, perform magical acts in their lives without even realizing it, but they do so sporadically and accidentally.
A magician is a person who does this consciously and makes a choice between these two forms of force. For example, the great magician Karl Marx, a Satanist and black magician, like Aristotle before him, unveiled to the multitude of his followers that the only causal force is matter and it is existence that determines consciousness, and therefore the will originates from matter and is its only source, shaping the spirit. Jesus and Plato were of the opposite opinion - that it is consciousness that determines being and the supreme source of will is spirit, which subordinates matter and its will. For Plato's follower, the spirit's will subsumes the will of matter and thus acts. The conclusion is that there are two types of magic - for Marx's followers the higher magic is the magic of matter, and for Plato's followers the higher magic is spirit, while the lower material magic plays a subordinate role. And in this way these schools have been fighting each other for centuries.
As for the alleged "gray area" of magic, it does not exist, it is an illusion, because there is nothing beyond matter and spirit, there is no such third force that is able to simultaneously subjugate these two forces. Another conclusion - in reality, one of these forces is higher and one was the first, regardless of man's perceptions, and it is She who subjugates the other according to nature. The one that tries to subjugate in an unnatural way momentarily creates a great illusion of "higher magic" etc. You must make your own choice!
@pajeczyna But mixed up, eh? Aristotle with Marx, Plato with Jesus, plus high and low magic.
Woman dear, where did you see in low magic the view of the superiority of matter over spirit? At the time when the concepts of higher and lower magic were distinguished, folk magic based on pagan traditions did not assume anything of the sort. In ancient beliefs untouched by Christianity, there was no dualism of spirit and matter. For the pagan, everything was a single entity. Both the idea that spirit transcends matter and the reverse would be incomprehensible to him. It's a bit like saying that one half of an apple is better than the other. Our pagan ancestors did not specifically distinguish between practices related to spiritual development and those affecting earthly life, because there was no room for it in their monistic worldview.
I also have no idea where the comparison of Marx to Aristotle came from. Where did Aristotle claim that matter stands above spirit? That's a pretty bold accusation against someone who elevated "divine knowledge," so criticized by empiricists, to the top of the sciences. The same Aristotle also preached the theory of the "immovable mover" - of a transcendent Spirit/God influencing the world.
Marx, on the other hand, drew fully from Hegel, whose philosophy was based on Neoplatonism.
This division between matter and Spirit that you present is nothing natural. It is simply a classification system, something artificial, created by man. Nor is it true that the two camps you speak of have been fighting each other for centuries. Dualism and the division into "cool Spirit" and "less cool matter" appeared in philosophy at a specific historical moment. It is not eternal or true. It is a mere classification like any other. And you are fitting elements to it that have nothing to do with it.
@ismer forgive me, but I must say that in my opinion you know very little about paganism.
Second, from what you write that you do not believe in the existence of life after the death of the physical body.
Third, Marx had ties to a satanic lodge and was a member of it, as documented and confirmed. So did Madame Blavatsky, who was also a member. Blavatsky wrote a great deal about the spirit, although she was a staunch Luciferian and remained so until the end of her life. Initially she was also a professional terrorist, planting bombs, and many future terrorists took their cue from her.
Yes, Aristotle wrote about what you mention, but this does not at all exclude the fact that he prepared the ground for Marxism and reversed the thinking of the Platonic school. His interpretation differed from Plato's and turned humanity towards seeing external entities as more important. He introduced an empirical approach to cognition and this way of treating magic.
Fourth, I'm not going to fight with you to be right. It's your choice and everyone's; if it's just a theoretical consideration, it doesn't matter much to me. What matters is the choice and the action based on it.
Words alone do not contain truth, TRUTH exists outside of them!
@ismer forgive me, but I must say that in my opinion you know very little about paganism.
Second, from what you write that you do not believe in the existence of life after the death of the physical body.
Third, Marx had ties to a satanic lodge and was a member of it, as documented and confirmed. So did Madame Blavatsky, who was also a member. Blavatsky wrote a great deal about the spirit, although she was a staunch Luciferian and remained so until the end of her life. Initially she was also a professional terrorist, planting bombs, and many future terrorists took their cue from her.
Yes, Aristotle wrote about what you mention, but this does not at all exclude the fact that he prepared the ground for Marxism and reversed the thinking of the Platonic school. His interpretation differed from Plato's and turned humanity towards seeing external entities as more important. He introduced an empirical approach to cognition and this way of treating magic.
Fourth, I'm not going to fight with you to be right. It's your choice and everyone's; if it's just a theoretical consideration, it doesn't matter much to me. What matters is the choice and the action based on it.
Words alone do not contain truth, TRUTH exists outside of them!
Present me with historical evidence of what you say, because without it, it's just stories.
@pajeczyna Please quote the part of his statement that confirms this. It's a bit illogical what you wrote. After all, the physical body exists after death and that's what we bury in the cemetery. After all, a corpse doesn't disappear without a trace after death 😀 The pagans - and here you need to specify which specifically we're talking about - had their own ideas about the universe and the soul, which didn't contradict their monistic beliefs at all.
In their views, each element of the soul was part of a greater whole. The Christian idea that the soul was something completely opposite to the body was alien to them. For them, the soul and body were a unity, an inseparable creation whose elements interpenetrated each other.
1 Paganism, especially in the Slavic version, is very similar in essence to Hinduism.
2 Plato's approach reflects the system of caste division that exists in India and Egypt. A wise person knows that this system exists and is not artificial. Plato only shows reality, he does not invent anything, unlike Aristotle. There will always be sages, warriors, merchants and the people, because this is due to natural inequality.
3 You may find it controversial, but I am not saying that empiricism is bad or unnecessary. Empiricism in Aristotle's version, however, diverts attention from our inner self and directs it to the outer world. Just look at modern civilization, how it directs us towards the stars and space travel. A spiritual man should be more interested in traveling within himself. One shifts one's attention from the microcosm to the macrocosm. This is evidenced by the fact that at the end of the 19th century the concept of association began to be removed from curricula and today it is only available in NLP or alternative psychology courses. Our thinking has been replaced by diagrams and images on TV, the Internet, etc.
Here's a quick one:
1 In its essence, minced cutlets resemble pork chops.
2 After death, a physical body, called a corpse, is left to decompose.
3. pointing out something obvious can also be an art form.
4 Frankly, I don't see the problem. If someone wants to search for a ghost, let him do it. And if someone is interested in astronomy, that's his business. Personally, I'd rather be sure that there is no abyss across the ocean than deal with my clogged chakras.
And as for high and low magic:
If we look at the very definition of magic, we see that such a division makes little sense.
It's a bit like in literary studies. Each successive researcher tries to divide the subject more and more into smaller subgroups. The result, in 200 years, was a category tree so expansive that I had to scroll through it three times on my phone to note everything.
And you match it with elements that have nothing to do with it.
If you look at it from a broader perspective, you can see that all the mind is trying to define is just fitting facts to certain theories.
High magic is associated not only with rituals, but also with a spiritual approach that transcends the forces of nature. These are more advanced teachings, passed through initiation and transmitted in secret circles. You say that true knowledge can't be gained from books or the Internet, but through traditional teaching by masters in schools and monasteries.
Low magic, on the other hand, focuses on working with the forces of nature, is found in folk and shamanic magic, and is based on family tradition. It is more related to earthly matters and does not reach higher spiritual levels.
High magic can use low magic when necessary, but it has tools that low magic does not have access to. Your point is that only the most persistent and determined can really explore these secrets, while the rest remain on the surface of the subject.
