Magic and the Christian priesthood; magic in everyday modern life...

It seems distinctly possible that there can be no viable priesthood, including Christian priesthood, that is not understood to be magic-using: that is, understood to be magic-using both by the laity and the priests themselves.

(When I speak of magic here, I use the word in the loose fashion employed by modern secular people- and typically a belief in which is imputed to others (rather than the speaker himself) - which would include 'belief in' things such as healings, foresight and divination, revelations, answered prayer, angelic and demonic beings, ghosts, talismans or other objects with special power... anything which is associated with the world beyond the material. To the modern mind everything of this type is equally 'magic'; and all real religion is therefore magic.)

Magic is probably essential for priesthood authority - and for this authority to be legitimate the magic must be real - at least to the extent that there is some real magic being done by some of the priesthood.

*

I make this inference based on history, especially that of the longest-lived societies. Pre-Christ Egypt - with its magician priesthood ruled by a supreme god-priest - sets the benchmark; since then the Byzantine empire is the longest enduring polity, and it was a society saturated with magic, and the spiritual leadership was based-upon miracle-working monastics and hermits (who, by this analysis, were the true 'priests' even though mostly not-ordained).

The Roman Catholic church likewise seems to have been strongest when most associated with magical occurrences and a society which expected these - of course The Mass is (by this definition) a magical event which can only be done by a priest.

Among Protestants of strong faith, there is much magic - faith healings, revelations, explicit divine guidance via prayer, direct instruction from scripture, speaking in tongues and so forth; however, for Protestants these are not associated with priests but available throughout all faithful church members: priests have no specially magical authority or powers qua priests (but only perhaps as charismatic individuals), consequently they are not regarded as priests - and indeed the word is seldom used.

Among Mormons, all members have direct revelations from the divine concerning their own lives and other topics; all men in good standing are priests, and have special access to magical powers such as blessing and healing. Designated priests (Patriarchs) have a special clairvoyant power of foresight and wise advice; church general authorities - and especially the Prophet - uniquely have such powers concerning matters to do with the whole church.

*

Modern culture - and much of the best of it, that which seems to oppose the demonic hedonic materialism - has an explicit focus on broadly, or indeed specifically, magical themes. Magic is everywhere - yet many Christians affect to oppose this magic, while yet (as I describe above) devout Christian's lives are permeated with  (what seems to secular people) magic.

This weakens Christianity; maims it, sets it at war with itself and its potential allies.

The point about magic is motivation. The modern people who describe themselves as 'magicians' (witches, wiccans, warlocks, druids, wizards etc) and make a big thing about magic-described-as-such are (whatever they may claim) mostly intending to use magic as a form of power used to get what they personally want (which is often of a sexual nature - as generally happens outwith religion; sex being the second most powerful motivator, on average).

What is wrong with modern magicians is not their magic but their motivation - which is either personal or if not, then secular Leftist; hence (to put it bluntly!) evil. 

*

On the one hand we ought not to regard magic as anything other than a natural part of real life. Societies that deny the reality of magic destroy themselves - first spiritually, then materially.

But there is something necessarily new and different about the modern attitude to magic - due to the change in consciousness which has come over us as cultures and as individuals. As Owen Barfield described so well; our modern minds work in a different way from minds of the past - we are so self-conscious that we can even distinguish our selves from our thoughts (such, during introspection, even that our own thoughts may seem alien).

Magic may be natural, but we moderns cannot naturally be magic in the same way as a Medieval European, a Byzantine or an Ancient Egyptian was magic - we can only attain such unselfconscious immersion in magic via altered states of consciousness, by some kind of intoxication (deliberate self-impairment of thinking, especially in terms of clarity and purposiveness - a stripping-away or suppression of the self); including the group-frenzy of crowds focused on a charismatic magician/ priest,

But this is on the one hand a temporary and encapsulated magic, inadequate to our purposes; on the other hand it is misleading in terms of what is most needed and wanted.

Of course we need to acknowledge and live-by magic - but in a way that gives full authority to the self-aware modern mind; the magic we regard as real and effectual requires to be integrated fully into ordinary everyday, practical, social consciousness - not just for extended-moments of solitude or recreation.

In conclusion; we want and need magic in our lives; if we are to have priests they must be a group acknowledged to be especially 'expert' - knowledgeable and skillful - in the use of magic; but modern magic must not be (merely) a revival of the magic of the past - accessible only to children or those in altered states of consciousness: the magic of now and the future must be everyday and supersensory, spontaneous and purposive; powerful, but only in the service of divine destiny.

Magic and will-power across the ages (or, How to do White Magic - as of 2021)

I feel it is necessary to clarify the status of magic from a Christian perspective; and specifically from a Romantic Christian perspective that sees human consciousness as having developed (evolved) through human history. 

Necessary, because if we regard magic as (something like) the attainment of human will by supernatural (non-material) means; then magic is real, important; and may be white or black. 

I define white magic as in accordance with God's will; that is, in harmony with ongoing divine creation. 

White magic is done by loving alignment of an individual's will with Good...

Whereas black magic is the attempt to impose one's detached and personal will upon other persons, other beings, or the world generally. 

Black magic can only be done with demonic assistance, and therefore (overall, eventually, inevitably) actually is done in pursuit of evil.

Black magic has not changed very much through history - it has always been possible, and apparently always follows the same 'Faustian' trajectory. Some person or group wants to impose their personal, selfish will upon the world; seeks to do so by supernatural means; and actually does so by means of employing demonic power. 

The black magician believes he can control the demons (despite that they are supernaturally magical, and he is not); by means of some technology or bargain. But the whole thing is actually a demonic snare by which the demon comes to control the black magician - who is therefore either a dupe, servant or slave to the Satanic agenda. 

And the end result is the same - the unrepentant black magician is damned; and apparently suffers more than the usual torments of the damned, for his presumption.

A somewhat conjectural history of white magic (which, nonetheless, I believe is broadly correct) has it that in our pre-historical hunter-gatherer past, God-aligned white magic was simply part of life.  

The individual human's will was neither detached from the human group-will and the group-destiny; and was immersed-in the divine will and having a mostly un-conscious direct knowledge of divine destiny.

Apparently, some individuals had a greater aptitude (what we now term the 'shamans') but the essential activity was universal: everybody did their bit, and contributed magically in some way - spontaneously and mostly unconsciously. 

As human consciousness developed, and humans became more free-agents, as in the Ancient Egyptian empire; this spontaneous knowledge and alignment with the divine was also lost. 

For the Pharaoh and priest-magicians of Egypt, magic required elaborately-selected and -initiated priests; who employed complex systems of ritual, symbol and many other 'technologies' (such as divination) to align their wills with the divine. 

These were overwhelmingly white magicians, who used the supernatural to benefit the society rather than themselves; and who (under the semi-divine Pharaohs) guided the society in harmony with God's destiny - and were able to accomplish (by magic instead of technology) advanced material achievements that still astonish the world. 

The development of consciousness continued, and as well as becoming more free, more of an agent; the individual Man's will became more separate from the divine will and the community will alike. 

As a result, white magic became more difficult, less powerful - and Men (detached from the divine) became more prone to black magic. 

The (all-but) end of the era of strong white magic was at the start of the modern era (Renaissance - 15th and 16th centuries in Europe); with the last of the white magicians (e.g. Paracelsus, John Dee and the Alchemists most of whom had ambivalent reputations or kept their activities secret (like Newton, Hooke and Ashmole). 

This darkening of magic was probably due to contamination of motive by the magician's more-detached personal will. This was the era when the Faust legend of black magic became archetypal; and the negative views of witches (motivated by spite, desiring to harm individuals and society) also became more dominant. 

In the fully modern era, white magic became almost impossible. 

Attempts to revive it in the 19th century, and increasingly through the twentieth century, were only partially successful (skeptical outsiders saw nothing). 

The practitioners found that the power and scope of magic was dwindling almost to nothing; and eventually was almost wholly limited to the psychological realm of the practitioners themselves. 

For example; in the last 19th and early 20th century magical rituals could change the consciousness of participants and sometimes produce quasi-objective 'manifestations'  - but by the late twentieth century this power was greatly reduced, and ritual magic work was all-but merged with imagination (art, narrative, music and drama) as technologies of consciousness. 

So, where from here? The way ahead to a resurgence of white magic was explained (albeit not implemented) by Rudolf Steiner and his 'disciple' Owen Barfield. 

Group magical work is rare, weak - and at present illegal (because groups are illegal for the masses --- although not among the Establishment, who continue to perform their black magic in groups); so nearly all modern white magic must be individual. 

Now that human consciousness is spontaneously and naturally detached from the divine; white magic requires conscious choice. 

White magic now does not attempt to influence by will the appearances of the world, or the behaviours of persons. Furthermore, it happens in thinking rather than (as in the past) by perception. 

This, because the white magician is no longer immersed in the divine - he must meet the divine halfway. 

Indeed, white magic needs to become detached from the individual's will; instead the individual's will needs to be aligned to God by conscious, chosen effort. 

In sum: White magic now should not try to operate at the level of changing God's primary creation - we should not be looking to change our sensorial-perceptions of reality. 

We should not be motivated by a desire to impose our will; nor to attain any particular end-result in this world (such as a change in human behaviour, or society, or weather). 

Instead, white magicians need to attain (and this will, of course, be temporary and usually very partial) alignment of their own conscious thinking with God's ongoing creation.

And if this is attained then white magic will 'Just Happen'.

What we will then be doing is contributing to God's creation; and contributing from our own unique divine Real Self. 

We will therefore be contributing some-thing (some Good) that nobody else could have contributed. 

We will be adding to the total sum of eternal actuality; adding some-little-thing from our own small corner of that actuality. 

Is this worth the effort? It may be. Because sometimes even the littlest contributions turn-out to be vital to the Big Picture.

The "magical scientist": Ceremonial Magic and Science

From the Yu-Gi-Oh! card game

I am re-reading Wizards: a history, by Peter G Maxwell-Stuart (2004); and reflecting on the use of ceremonial magic throughout recorded history; including in the Bible itself, and other early Christian texts where the magic attributions were sometimes vastly amplified.

It all seems to confirm my strong impression that magic and science were pretty much the same thing through most of history, and constituted part of the "this worldly" and social aspect of religions. 

So how and why did they separate - or is science still actually a kind of magic? Maybe...

The virtue (or otherwise) of magic was mainly a matter of the (genuine) motivations of the magician - whether, for instance, these were selfish or spiteful; or else altruistic and intended to benefit good causes. 

And to a lesser extent, the quality of magic was influenced by the good, neutral, or evil nature; of spiritual beings that were contacted and summoned, and whose cooperation or aid was sought. 

But mostly magic was regarded as method; a way of getting things done; such as a means to learn information or accomplish a desired goal. As are science and technology nowadays. 

 

Therefore the main question about any particular usage of ceremonial magic* was - does it work?

And the answer seems to be - Yes! Magic did work... 

Which is to say that magical ceremonies worked sometimes - magic sometimes did what it was intended to do. 

But magic typically worked (it seems to me) partially; by which I mean that although effective, the effects were achieved with great effort on someone's part, sometimes achieved only slowly; sometimes the magic only partially solved the problem. 

And the outcomes were often controversial - accepted by some, denied by others. 

And the explanation of any specific magical effect was also controversial; as we see in relation to Jesus in the New Testament. 

We see differing views of miracles. Was the "magic" done by Jesus himself (as a divine being); by God via Jesus; by angels or demons Jesus had enlisted; was there a natural explanation; or was the miracle some kind of illusion, trick or fraud? 

Much the same could be asked of any magician - since some magicians claimed (or were asserted to be, by followers) divine avatars or emanations (i.e. themselves a god), or to have assimilated to the divine. 

 

Therefore, although it can be said that magic "worked"; there remains the deep question of what it means that magic works; and (in sum) it is evident that any evaluation of any kind of "working" cannot be made wholly objective and impersonal. 

That is: different people, different societies, different social contexts - all affect evaluations of whether a procedure is "working", and to what extent. 

But it is possible to regard modern science (say, from the 1600s onwards) as a systematic and communal attempt to make magic work more reliably by diminishing the personal and contextual. 

Such that a given scientific procedure can be counted-upon to produce a given result, to a greater extent than was the case with ancient magic. 

And this goal was pursued, over several generations of scientists, even when the results were more modest, less spectacular, than the results claimed for magic.

The point was that scientific results could be relied-upon in a way that was less dependent on the qualities of the scientist and the specific situation, than was the case with magicians. 

Science required much less training and knowledge than magic; and the accepted societal applications of science became much wider than achieved by magicians - indeed, science became almost universal. 

"Less" dependent - but still dependent to a degree; because any reflective and critically-minded real-scientist would know that the results of science still depend on many of the aspects of ceremonial magic: the knowledge and skills of the scientist, elaborate procedures and equipment etc. 

My conclusion is that the magical elements of science were never eliminated, and science could still, therefore, be regarded as a type of magic. 

However; the successful attempt to reduce the magical aspects in science came at a cost; because the trend led, incrementally, to the eventual elimination of the divine and spiritual from scientific discourse... 

The point at which the spiritual and divine were altogether eliminated from scientific thinking (in the later 20th century); was the point at which science ceased to be real and became, instead, merely a branch of the totalitarian bureaucracy; and scientists merely a species of research bureaucrat.  

In sum: Real science is a sub-branch of magic built-upon those areas of life where the desired effects can most reliably, and more completely, be achieved...

Which also means that many aspects of life are ignored by real-science because outcomes are unpredictable; or depend too much on individual persons and circumstances. 

*By "ceremonial" magic; I mean that requiring some combination of knowledge or scholarship; training and practice; and using some kind of (more or less complex) physical procedure, actions, words, and/or material artefacts.  

The power of English Magic (from an interview with Susanna Clarke)

*

Edited from https://www.drake.org.uk/interviews/susanna-clarke-author-of-jonathan-strange-mr-norrell/

Question: You seem to specifically emphasize English magic throughout Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. It is rarely, as I recall, just magic that is returning — it is English magic. Is English magic very different from that of other places? Did other nations lose their magic as England did, and if so, is it coming back? Can you do English magic if you aren’t in England, or is it tied to the land?

Susanna Clarke's answer: This is an important question and I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t give it a lot of thought until I was nearing the end of writing Strange and Norrell.

Yes, you can do English magic if you aren’t in England. We know this because Strange does magic in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Belgium (and for an hour or so in America). Nevertheless English magic is tied to the land.

Let me see if I can explain this apparent contradiction. Human magic is borrowed from fairies — and fairies don’t think of magic as we do, as if it were something special. From their point of view it’s just part of normal life.

If a fairy wants something he asks his friends — the Wind, the Rain, the Hills and the Stars etc. — to help him get it. English magicians developed magic — made it less fundamental, less natural, but ultimately they were drawing on the goodwill of the English Wind, the English Rain, the English Hills and those Stars that you can see from the Sussex Wolds or Birmingham or Carlisle. So English magic was like a conversation between the magicians and England.

The reason English magic is particularly strong is because of John Uskglass - The Raven King, a child stolen from England and taken to Faerie, where he learnt fairy magic and gained a fairy kingdom, before returning to England to gain an English kingdom. He then taught his magic to other humans.

This wasn’t so much because he was a generous sort of person — he’s not usually. It was more because he had two sorts of subjects — fairies and humans — and he saw that he needed to get them to bond, to become one people. Getting them to do magic together was a clever way to do this.

On the other hand, how English is English magic? As we’ve seen it comes from fairies. And John Uskglass didn’t think of himself as English — not at first anyway. He claimed to be Norman, which (if it were true) meant that his grandfather would have come over from Normandy with William the Conqueror. And in the 19th century Jonathan Strange’s mother was Scottish.

At the end of JS&MN there’s a footnote about a Scottish magician and Scottish magic. And Jennifer-Oksana’s is an Introduction to The Books of Caribbean Magic (2nd Edition): a fun piece of fan fiction crossing JS&MN with Pirates of the Caribbean. Other countries do have their own magics — I can’t see why they wouldn’t.

On the whole I suspect English magic has the edge because of Uskglass.

*

The Restoration of English Magic (re: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell)

Susanna Clarke's novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (2004), as 'about' the restoration of English magic after a hiatus of some 200-400 years; and the underlying assumption of the story is that this restoration is 'a good thing'.

Yet on the surface magic seems to cause a great deal of trouble and doesn't really make all that much of a difference to national affairs. So why is restoring it a good idea?

This matter is not tackled explicitly in the text, so I need to make inferences.


First of all, what is English magic and where does it comes from?

Magic is the ability to use the 'elements' (stones, water, rain, earth, wind etc) in order to accomplish aims; and magic comes from fairies. Fairies can do magic naturally, because they spontaneously communicate with the elements and can make alliances with them - the elements will usually do what fairies ask of them.

Men can become magicians and do magic either by forming alliances with fairies or (more, or less, superficially) copying fairy magic. Men usually cannot communicate with the elements; so if they do not enlist the aid of fairies, men can only do magic indirectly by learning what fairies do, and (more, or less, effectively) copying them to compel the elements to cooperate in a rather limited fashion.


English magic - as a tradition - came from The Raven King (John Uskglass) who ruled the North of England circa 1100-1400 from his capital in Newcastle. After he departed from England there was an immediate loss of magical scope and power, then Men's ability to do magic gradually faded-away over the next few generations. During the same time, contact between Men and fairies ceased.

Uskglass was the greatest-ever magician because he was a Man who was stolen by fairies as a child, and (for reasons unknown) came to embody the strengths of both races.

His kingdom in Northern England included both Men and fairies. The Men had the advantages of enhanced power; the fairies were better ruled by Men than by themselves (fairies being excessively indolent, of modest intelligence and too fickle to be strategic) - and they would also kidnap and enchant some men, women and children to be their beautiful playthings or drudging servants.

Despite this endemic, albeit low frequency, problem of fairy kidnappings; the people of Northern England regarded the era of The Raven King as a golden age - and had King Arthur-like legends about him returning and resuming his rule - this being a fairly likely prospect given that John Uskglass, despite being a Man in origin, seemed to have become as longaevus as fairies (who can live many thousands of years, and are difficult to kill).

Indeed, the story of the novel is about how the early steps towards this return are 'managed' (from 'behind the scenes') by John Uskglass.


But, in terms of the book; why was the era of magic a better one than the era which succeeded it? My feeling is that it was not because of the extra power deriving from magic and alliance with fairies; but because of the spiritual prerequisites of magic; that to be able to accomplish magic properly required the fairy-like ability to communicate and form alliances with the elements, with England.

So the era of magic was an era of depth and meaning, in which Men belonged to their Land in a way far beyond anything normally achievable.

To do magic, the English need to become 'at home in England' - to enter a real and personal relationship with the elements of their country.

And this requires that very hazardous undertaking: a renewed relationship between Men and fairies.


The Restoration of English magic was therefore, and necessarily, also the restoration of Englishmen's contact with the fairy race - an event which rapidly has some horrible consequences for several English men and women throughout the course of the story.

So, the Restoration of English magic is A Good Thing, but also a thing fraught with danger and with horrible consequences for some people; and although we see mostly the bad effects of renewed contact with fairies, I think we must also assume that this is A Good Thing too - and worth the risks and costs.


As with everything else; the result of interactions between Men and fairies broadly depend on motivations - especially the motivations of Men (who are more moral than fairies). Therefore, the benefits tend to flow from good motivations, and dangers and suffering tends to be a consequence of bad choices - greed, power-seeking, the desire for status, hatred and so on.

Indeed, the bad consequences of fairy contact can be seen to flow from a single bad (wrong, wicked) choice by Gilbert Norrell during his first contact with the fairy known as The Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair - this being the first contact between an English magician and a fairy for some hundreds of years.

More on this soon.

How did Good Magic become impossible - how may it again become possible?

When it comes to magic, what is real and what is the provenance of the real, one can only work forwards on the basis of whatever primary thinking intuitions emerge. This is what has emerged, so far:

I assume that real and Good magic was an 'everyday' possibility for people in the remote past, but seems not to be at present. Examples of real Good magic would include Ancient Egyptian priest-magicians who accomplished supernaturally-enabled feats of building and making, the British builders of megalithic monuments, and most recently some reports of some tribal shamans or medicine men.

But magic was not really 'used' in the past, not used to attain human will; rather, men were immersed-in the divine; and insofar as a man conformed to divine purposes, he was able unconsciously to be a conduit or coencentartion of divine powers. This was therefore a kind of channelling, and not of human will manipulation nature (the human mind serving as a channel for divine powers and purposes). I presume that magical rituals were mostly about the mental preparation that made this channelling possible. 

As human consciousness, the autonomous, agent self, became stronger through human history; so this magic became impossible. Men were no longer immersed-in the spiritual but stood apart. The spirit world was invisible, imperceptible - only exceptionally and by more and more extreme measures (and finally not at all - many modern people never-and-cannot perceive the spirit aspects of reality).


From about 1500 onwards in The West, Men stood apart from the divine; and from that time attempts at magic were attempts of the self, of 'the ego' to coerce nature, to compel results - they were driven by human desire and will.

And Renaissance magic was ineffective, in terms of its stated goals. Its effects are explained by changing of human minds (the mind of the magician, and the mind of any human subjects) - in a kind of self/ other brainwashing, and also by evil magic done by subordinating the self to serve demonic forces.

Good magic became impossible because Men were (due to the evolutionary-development of human consciousness, in-line with divine destiny) no longer immersed-in God's creation. Men increasingly stood apart from creation, the personal self became differentiated-from the divine; and therefore Men's powers were derived only from Men.


That is the current situation (although it was meant to be a brief and temporary phase - we are stuck-in-it due to wrong human choices; we are stuck in spiritual adolescence - refusing to move on to spiritual maturity. We are stuck because maturity requires each person's explicit choice and wish).

Here and Now, most claims at magic are bogus - in the sense that they are done by convincing the self or other people that magic has-been-done: modern manipulative magic is psychological (and any benefits are a kind of psychotherapy).

Attempts to control reality, to make reality to conform to explicit human wishes, by magical systems such as spells and rituals, are not effective; they do not do what they set out to do by the mechanisms they posit. And what they do do, is not what was intended, nor are the means correctly known.

Rare instances of real Good magic are either done unintentionally, by accident, due to an unpredictable, unplanned, unconscious and momentary alignment of a person's purposes with divine purposes.

Real and evil magic can be done, in a way; but they are not done in conformity with the magician's will; the magician is not controlling supernatural reality, but is being-controlled-by it. When a magician really summons a demon, and some magical consequences ensue; the magician is being manipulated by the demon, not vice versa.

And evil magic can do only what demons can do, what immaterial spirits can do - which seems to be done by acting on minds; tempting, persuading, convincing, via sins. Demons cannot create, cannot affect divine creative activity: creation is solely divine.


The magic of the future will happen insofaras an individual person attains primary thinking, or Final Participation; when someone consciously and voluntarily aligns their thinking with the universal reality of God's thinking - which is creation-in-action.

We may then, as individuals, participate-in the ongoing work of creation. And that is our proper goal now (i.e. theosis) - but especially in post-mortal resurrected life.

When we think In Reality, we must be aligned with divine purposes. We are (or may be) doing real magic in this world, and doing it consciously and purposively; those purposes coming from that which is divine in us (what we inherit as children of God) - but these purposes are not 'devised', the purposes are emergent-from that divine mind in us. That which makes this possible is Love - specifcially love of God (which, for us, is Jesus Christ) and of our divine family, consisting of God's loving children.

Thus any idea of a person 'using' magic to attain human purposes is nonsense. We may participate-in the Good magic that is ongoing divine creation (either unconsciously and immersed-in, or consciously and voluntarily in primary thinking); or we may be used-by the demonic powers in their work of sabotaging and inverting divine creation. Ultimately these are the only two options.  

Three kinds of magic in stories

When magic occurs in stories it has various flavours: here are three of them. 

One is the low magic of "sword and sorcery" stories, and indeed most stories that feature magic - in which magic functions as a technology of power. This ranges widely across spells, and conjurations, summoning of powerful beings, seeing the future, controlling others etc. 

But this is not a very "magical" use of magic - indeed it reduces the magical to the mundane. 

Indeed, such stories are often cynical, reductionist, intended to dis-enchant. 

There are also stories in which magical elements function to indicate a hidden world - the magic enables perception of what would otherwise be imperceptible or hidden: this is the "occult revealing" function of magic. 

Such magic may reveal a world of spirits behind the material world, that "the dead" are alive and can be communicated with, that there are invisible manifestations (such as auras), that telepathy is real - and such like. 

The general impression is that there is more to life than commonly acknowledged, and this can impart an enchanted atmosphere.

The third kind of magic is pure enchantment - and this is (pretty much) how the magic of elves is depicted in The Lord of the Rings. 

There is very little use of magic as a technology - although there is some (the Mirror of Galadriel; and elven swords, cloaks, and ropes for instance). There is also the occult trope, in the hobbits often comment that the world turns-out to contains much more and strange phenomena and entities than the commonplace experiences of the Shire would suggest.   

But the main use of elf magic is related to an atmosphere of enchantment; a different quality of attitude, experience, motivation among elves; a feeling that is both joyous and sad, supremely good and perilous - here-and-now and yet backward looking across vast expanses of time.

 As implied - these uses of magic have somewhat different narrative functions in stories, and presumably different intent. When magic is used as a technology, there may be an element of intending to induce wishful thinking in the reader; but on the whole the magic is just a narrative device, among many. 

When magic is used to indicate occult realities, this may have the intent of indirectly encouraging the reader to take the same attitude to his ordinary life - the story may be encouraging the reader to assume that behind the mundane world is another reality... if only a different attitude were adopted to perceiving it, or particular abilities were available.   

The purpose of pure enchantment in a story is - I take it - religious - in the sense of a whole-world view.

The magic of enchantment in a story carries - to some degree - the implication that "reality" - our life, nature - really is a more wonder-full and inspiring thing than we generally assume. 

Intuitive Magic: the 'magic' of Final Participation (post 'ritual magic')

The only good magic is Christian magic - i.e. rooted in Christianity and arising from it; but I have often said that traditional 'ritual' or 'ceremonial' magic is inappropriate and ineffective for these times; because it depended on a passive, immersive Original Participation type of consciousness, that has (all-but) disappeared (at least in The West, among adults). 

We are now in an era when Final Participation is the proper way for us to engage creatively with the world - and Final Participation is a consciously chosen, individual activity - done in the realm of 'primary thinking' (a.k.a. heart-thinking).

Yet thinking may be aided by particular activities, and this is where the 'magic' (broadly conceived) comes-in. 

Ritual magic was done using formal ceremonies, words and artifacts; usually by groups; after training; and according to pre-arranged timetables. 

But now, magic ought to have a different form (I would say is destined to have a different form): a very different form, that I propose to call Intuitive Magic.

Intuitive magic depends on intuition, which is individual (not groupish); and cannot be ordered nor elicited on-demand; therefore it must occur spontaneously, in response to the arrangements of divine providence. 

It is a matter of the individual being aware of possible situations emerging (such as synchronicities and unexpectedly striking stimuli), alert to such clues and implications; and being correctly orientated, from a basis in Christianity.  

To amplify; I personally am not able to attain intuitions of the form "What should I do?", but will only receive answers to questions of a dichotomous form, such as: "Is this right (or wrong)?" or "Should I do this (or not)?" or "Should I proceed with my plan (or not?)".

Therefore, when an intuition arises, it must be cast into a Yes/No form; and the second test or check, is to seek guidance on the validity of this specific formulation. 

When a clear and self-validating answer comes, the process is complete; although it may be repeated as often as seems necessary to generate sureness.  

When an answer to this intuitive check is not clear despite genuine commitment to seeking it - or is not forthcoming at all - this is because the question has been incorrectly formulated; being insufficiently precise or rooted in false assumptions. More 'work' is needed. 

Thus, if intuitive Christian magic is regarded as things we might do - material things such as words, actions, meditation, or anything else - to attain goals compatible with the divine will; then a major pre-requisite is patience.  

Ritual magic is done to a timetable; but intuitive magic takes as long as it takes for the individual to be in the right frame of values and mind, awaiting correct intuition, and for providence to arrange circumstances to make it possible. 

Patience, in turn, requires trust; trust in God's personal loving concern for us our-selves, eternally; and trust in God's creative power - that in a world of beings with free agency and whatever the operations of evil: sooner or later the situation will be made to arise in which intuitive magic can be done. 

What then, is this 'intuitive magic'? 

Subjectively and temporarily, it is experienced as a positive change in consciousness. 

But objectively and eternally; it is the operation of our personal creativity in this mortal life, adding to God's creativity: it adds our own creative contribution to the ongoing divine: is an instance of co-creation. 

The magic of human institutions: Now absent, once always present; but never wholly sufficient

For most of recorded history until recently; many human institutions (organizations, formal groupings) were magical * - to some degree. 

The further back we go, the more magical they could be. The earlier in our life we go, the more likely that we would ourselves experience this magic. 

However, there were also not-magical groupings; and, no matter how magical the institution - there have always been those people who do not participate in it; being either immune to that magic, or susceptible but reject it. 

Furthermore, the innate magic of pre-adolescent childhood; means that - even now - groupings of such children often have a strongly magical ambience. 

The big difference across the generations relates to adult institutions - which used often to have a significant magical quality - but now are likely to be (almost entirely) soulless, dead, mechanical - and indeed purposively anti-magical... Zealous in their active destruction of any such qualities - typically by means of abstract and generic systems of bureaucracy and computerization. 

For instance; many educational institutions used to be strongly magical in their nature. This applied especially to small and localized institutions, or those with a mutually-selective character (i.e. both selected and selecting). 

Through my adult life I experienced educational institutions with considerable variations in the magical qualities; although I was also aware that most people were not consciously aware of such differences even when they spontaneously responded to them. 

Most people would speak against the reality and significance of such institutional aspects; and would cheerfully erode or eliminate magical aspects whenever this seemed expedient, from abstract ideology; or sometimes from sheer resentment-driven spite. 

Looking back; I could see that this institutional magic had, overall, been both more pervasive and common, and stronger (at least potentially stronger), the further back one went. 

Yet institutional enchantment was never complete. Human life was always and for everybody to some degree - marred by the "mundane" - this being the nature of our mortal state. 

The magic of institutions was therefore at its height (as I understand it) probably the major source of enchantment in human existence; while at the same time the very nature of institutions (plus the human beings who constitute them) meant that this magical quality was always both incomplete and contradicted.

 

And, through may adult life (from the 1980s) I could also see that this magic was innately ebbing - while also being purposively-expunged - from the educational institutions of which I knew. 

The difference across the decades was extreme. In my childhood and early adulthood the magical quality of (for instance) universities was (to me) palpable. By the time I retired from academia, the magic had been very-completely destroyed. 

Perhaps most evident when a soul-less, and indeed actively soul-destroying - institution, would attempt to cloak itself in the enchanted mantle of earlier generations. 

This would dishonestly be attempted using the mind-manipulating procedures of modern advertising and public relations; and would therefore fail to attain magic, but reduce enchantment to ideology, false promises of hedonism, fashion, and covert-appeals to status snobbery.  

While I devoted considerable energy to fighting this anti-magical trend, I now believe that a decline of that kind of spontaneous, largely unconscious, institutional magic was inevitable - due to the innate developments of human consciousness. 

When the human beings of an institution themselves come to lack spontaneous and unconscious magic; then enchantment is bound to wane from all institutions. 

The analogy with adolescence (nowadays) is close. Many children are spontaneously and unconsciously susceptible to enchantment; but the innate process of adolescence will abolish this; after which the capacity to know and live magically, must be the consequence of a conscious choice.  

In the later twentieth century, Western adults reached an "adolescence" of consciousness, so that spontaneous and unconscious magic receded - and if we were to continue to live any kind of enchanted life in our institutions; magic would need explicitly to be acknowledged as good, and purposively pursued.  

In sum: as we approached the millennium, magic needed to become self-conscious and consciously valued; or else there would soon be no magic.      

We know by now which of these happened! So complete has become the disenchantment of institutions, that (it seems) most people deny that things ever were otherwise! Most people assume that all institutions were always as they are now: spiritually-dead, exploitatively manipulative, habitually dishonest...

But such retrospective denigration is projection of our evil onto others; as can be seen if historical sources are experienced sympathetically. 

From where we actually-are; I find it hard even to imagine how institutions can be re-enchanted; because there is neither recognition of the problem, nor will to solve it. 

Furthermore; I am pretty sure that (from here, from now) institutional re-enchantment can happen only on the basis of Jesus Christ. 

Yet this needs to happen in a context where the churches are themselves very-thoroughly disenchanted - including by assimilation into the ideological materialism of totalitarian bureaucracy. 

This means that any future source of enchantment must primarily (i.e. as a first step) be sought outwith the Christian church institutions - and Christianity (plus/ minus specific churches) regenerated from that basis. 

From the spiritual place we now inhabit and the people we actually are; I cannot see any way that a Christianity rooted primarily in institutional affiliation (to any kind of institution, no matter how idealized) can succeed in doing what needs to be done.

On the other side; the attempt to do without enchantment; to construct a religion that operates at the level of institutional power, rooted in the mundane, rational, functional (e.g. a religion designed to implement a particular kind of society) - well, this will surely fail. 

Fail because it will inevitably assimilate to the existing mundane, pseudo-rational, quasi-functionality of that system of totalitarianism that characterizes our civilization. With Men as we are; any possible church-based, institutionally-rooted Christianity will be secular and materialistic, totalitarian and political, and spiritually dead.  

The only path ahead, is the right path ahead. 

**

*"Magic" does not mean Good - since there is black magic (intended to manipulate people and creation), as well as white (in harmony with God and creation). But magic is, of itself, good; in the sense that it recognizes the reality of our participation in creation; and by enchantment we are aware of this participation. Whereas the exclusion or elimination of magic is intrinsically an evil because rooted in falsehood, and the intent to cause spiritual harm.   

What to do? Magic! (i.e. adding my individual creativity to the divine creative work)

Kevin McCall has taken a recent post from this blog, and extended the argument to conclude "Magic, or Bust!" (You need to read that post to see what he, and I, mean by 'magic'.)

So McCall argues that 'white magic' is, or ought to be, one aimed-at goal in these times. Indeed, I cannot think of any more-valuable and more deeply-satisfying thing someone can do than this. 

Valuable because it is a contribution to God's ongoing work of creation; satisfying because that which we contribute is from our unique individuality (exactly which, nobody-else could contribute). 

But how to do it? It is clear that good magic ("white magic") cannot nowadays be done as it was in the past. The modern consciousness has become almost completely cut-off from the divine if there is reliance upon spontaneous and unconscious mechanisms. Also cut-off from the consciousness of other-Men for old methods of aligning our will with the divine. So modern Man experiences himself as alone in a meaningless universe. 

To regain and experience 'participation' in both consciousness and that of other Men; Modern Man needs to attain this in a conscious and chosen fashion, in thinking (i.e. the state of Owen Barfield's Final Participation). 

If this is the "Magic" we need to seek; the how do we seek it? Given that any attempt to compel Magic by will-power can only be ineffective, or lead to 'black' magic. 

Well, first of all we need to be able to 'detect' Magic when it is happening - and when it is not. We need to learn that discernment in ourselves. Simply by knowing and valuing Magic, we will tend to increase its intensity, duration and frequency - as contrasted with someone who does not value Magic who will be more likely to think or do something that dissipates the state. 

Then we can learn in a negative sense what states of mind and conditions are hostile to magic. For most of us that will be situations of distraction, hyper-stimulation, rigidly constrained circumstances (like bureaucracy and form-filling), and passive states of impaired consciousness (including intoxication). 

In general, modern Man tends to seek passive forms of consciousness; seeks to be overwhelmed by external stimuli (such as media inputs; novel or highly-stimulating situations) - but if attained, this blocks any possibility of White Magic. 

Eventually we might learn the kind of activity and situation that is conducive to the sought-after Magical consciousness. McCall mentions art, prayer and meditation - and of course these terms are very broad in themselves. But also there are particular places, 'hobbies', activities (such as walking) - even certain times of day. 

Circumstances will never be causal, but may be conducive - yet even what is conducive will change through time due (for example) to habituation, changing specific situations, and changes in personality - including illness. 

Therefore what helps in attaining the Final Participation state of Magic needs to be discovered for each person; and probably rediscovered as what once worked well, loses its effectiveness. 

 

This is a world where all political activity in opposition to the Satanic Global Establishment is increasingly illegal or impossible. We can interpret this as a further encouragement to do what we, anyway, ought to be doing - which is to stop seeking political Answers to the evil of these times; and instead to focus on a Romantic and Christian response of purposive, individual, spiritual activity.  

Note by Scribble - a story

*

Note by Scribble

A story by Bruce G Charlton

There once was a wizard – in fact a failed wizard.

He was capable of magic, but as a matter of fact actually did none, nor had he ever in his whole life done any magic – although he talked about it a lot.

So, he was not really a wizard at all – because, at the very least, a wizard must be able to do magic – even if he never actually does magic (for one reason or another).

*

This not-wizard was called Scribble and he lived in a world where, officially, nobody could do magic for the simple reason that magic did not exist – or so the officials said. Therefore anyone who claimed to be a wizard was actually a not-wizard.

This meant that all real wizards were regarded as not-wizards – but the trouble was that there were several other kinds of not-wizard. Some were real wizards who did real magic; others were like Scribble – not-wizards who would have been magic wizards if only they had been properly instructed, but in this world there was nobody to instruct them (or, at least, nobody who would or could instruct them).

But there were also crazy-non-wizards and fake-non-wizards. The difference was that crazy-non-wizards believed that they were wizards but they were not; while fake-non-wizards knew they were not wizards, but wanted other people to believe that they were.

*

Scribble’s natural magic was indeed very weak, although it was perfectly real. Even under the best possible conditions, with the best possible teachers, he would never have been a Great Wizard, nor even an average wizard.

He would have been one of those minor wizards who fetch and carry, run messages, look up technical details, copy out magic books and the like. And the fact is that he would not have been very good even at that kind of basic work.

Yet he was not without talent. He had a magical gift, however it was not a magical gift that was much valued by the non-magic – and indeed it was not very impressive; although perhaps it should have been valued a bit more than it was.

*

Scribble couldn’t actually do anything very well, but he was instead a kind of seer; that is to say a see-er, and that is someone who sees what other people can’t.

But, even here, Scribble was not the kind of seer who attracts plum jobs with kings or warlords. Because Scribble could not see into the future, which is what most people want seers to do. Indeed he could not even see into the past, but only into the present.

And for most people, in fact everybody who Scribble ever met, seeing into the present just didn’t count as magic, they thought it was useless (even if it was true, which they doubted) because (they reasoned): Who needs magic, who needs a seer, to see what is in front of them and all around them?

*

Because he was a seer but had not developed his magic, Scribble made notes. He went around taking notes – people thought it was a diary or journal, but it wasn’t even that! Anyone who looked at Scribble's notes saw something too incomplete to be a diary and insufficiently detailed to be a journal...

These 'notes' were not usually about Scribble himself, his thoughts and opinions (which would not have interested most people, but would at least have been understandable), yet neither were the notes about the surrounding world (which might have been interesting to some future historian) – they were apprently random. Little snippets about this and about that.

Some seemed irrelevant, some seemed very obviously wrong – but there were a few, a very few, which were actually important; or perhaps a better word is significant. They might have been very useful to certain people at certain points in their lives, if only they had known about them, if only they had been interested enough to find them… but that would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack!

*

In the end, Scribble died, and all his notes were left behind – as was the plan from long ago.

And he found himself in a far off land where he met his big brother, who was extremely solid and bright – and it was only at this point that Scribble realized that he himself was not solid and bright, but instead rather like a wisp of smoke!

He also felt very different than in the old country. Scribble realized that now he could perceive things very clearly indeed, and in particular he remembered some extremely important things which he had almost completely forgotten.

At any rate, his big brother was very kind – how wonderful it was to meet him again! – and BB instructed Scribble in his new duties.

It turned-out that Scribble's notes might have some use after all. It turned-out that a 'Note by Scribble' was a thing of some value; at least if discovered by the right person at the right time and in the right circumstances...

*

Scribble had a job in going back to that place where he used to live, and delivering ‘notes’ to particular people at particular moments when they might (if taken notice of) be very helpful to them, especially when they had asked for something of the sort.

Nothing very spectacular; nothing like being one of the big brother’s wise men or strategists or healers, but certainly a useful job: a job that needed doing.

*

All this was excellent, except that – being a mere wisp of smoke – Scribble found it hard to learn, and couldn’t actually do very much. He had to rely on other people for a lot. But, on the other hand, he knew what he knew, and could do what he could do, and there were plenty of people of various types who were more than willing to do for him those things he could not do for himself.

*

Later, Scribble was given a new body. This had long been promised, and Scribble didn’t have to earn it – but he needed to wait until things had been finished in the old country.

Now they were finished, and all sorts of new plans were afoot, and Scribble needed a new body to do a new and somewhat different job: a more demanding job, indeed; a job that took more out of him, but which he found more rewarding.

It had taken a long time – or so it seemed; and matters had been delayed more than ideally they might have been; but Scribble had grown. He found he could learn more rapidly and more securely than ever before.

*

Life opened out before him!

Now: his first task before starting the job was to look for that lady he once had known and loved, but had somehow lost touch with some time ago.

She was here somewhere, he knew.

He had another chance.

And this time, he hoped, things might work out even better than they worked out before. Scribble had - after all - learned something.

*


Note: This micro-story came to me in a lump after brooding on JRR Tolkien's wondeful allegory Leaf by Niggle. Aside from literary quality and length, one difference is that Tolkien's is on the theme of Roman Catholic theology, incorporating purgatory etc.; while Note by Scribble is a Mormon allegory. 

Magical duels between early Christian missionaries and Druids of the British Isles

Saint Patrick magically duels a Druid

In the Roman and post-Roman era; the early Christian missionaries to the British Isles were highly successful at converting the Druidic pagans. 

This may suggest a basic religious compatibility; such that Christianity may have seemed like a natural extension or complement of the Druidic religion. 

For instance; according to Julius Caesar, the Celts of Gaul and Britain seem to have been exceptionally courageous in battle because they did not fear death; being convinced that they would personally survive death in some mode of reincarnation back into this mortal life. 

In a context where personal survival was already an established conviction; the Christian missionaries promise of resurrected eternal life in a Heaven, rather than merely returning to re-live "more-of-the-same", may have been regarded as a significantly better prospect. 

But, even if the post-mortal Christian outcome was better than what Druids could offer; there was the problem of establishing the missionary's authority to promise it. 

After all; why should a Celtic tribal King believe the word of some foreign priest who turned-up at his hall telling a story about the afterlife?  

A Christian missionary would therefore need to establish his own divine authority; and this would usually (it seems) be done by performing "wonders" with divine aid: wonders such as miracles, and also defeating the existing priesthood in trials of spiritual-strength.

This was done to prove the new God was stronger than the old ones, and prove that the new kind of priest spoke with divine authority.   

One such trial of spiritual strength was some variation of the magical duel - analogous to that in the Old Testament (Exodus 7: 8-13) between Aaron and the Pharoah's magical priests - the episode of the magical staffs and the snakes. 

It is important to recognize that the magic of Pharoah's wise Men is depicted as real; but weaker than the magic of Aaron and Moses.

Much the same things were reported in the evangelization of the British Isles, as John Michell summarizes in his 1990 book New light on the ancient mystery of Glastonbury ( pp103-4: I have condensed this passage):   

The great mystery behind early Christianity in Britain is how the first missionaries managed to persuade the chiefs, nobles and Druids to lead their people in converting to the new faith of Christ. Certainly there was opposition, but there is no record of violence or bloodshed. 

Contests between the rival men of religion took place on a professional level, as trials between rival magicians. We only hear about those engagements where Christians won, but it appears that their magic was generally superior to that of their opponents. 

Thus St Patrick prevailed over the Druids of Tara, St Columba defeated the Druids of Bruidh, and St David won a contest with the magician Boia. 

In times when the outcomes of battles were largely determined by the powers of the Druids on each side, a compelling inducement to accept Christianity was that Christian magic proved more effective than that of the pagans.  

The arts of ancient magic are no longer known and it is impossible to say by what combinations of psychology, conjuring, weather control, and elemental invocation; prehistoric battles were conducted. 

It is clear, however, that (unlike Christian magic) the magic of tribal shamans was ineffectual against outsiders of a different religion.

My understanding is that in ancient times magic was real and powerful, and could (in some civilizations) reliably be deployed as required (for instance, to build the pyramids). 

Nowadays, I think magic is still real, still happens; but evidently it is weaker and much less reliable than in the past. Thus; magic cannot nowadays be commanded in ways that seem to have been normal (at least for suitable gifted and trained persons) in Biblical times, or in the early centuries AD.

Nonetheless; it seems only honest to recognize that (bowdlerisations aside) early Christians used magic, as well as other types of miracle, to establish their credentials as speaking with authority on behalf of Jesus. 

Indeed; the remarkable effectiveness of early British missionaries (including those who later became Saints) was sometimes due precisely to the greater effectiveness of the new Christian magic, as compared with the old magic of rival pagan priests.  

 

Magical places, magical people?

Magic is primarily perspectival - in that if you can't see it, you won't see it. Many people go through life and almost-never notice magic.

But even if or when you can perceive magic, it is not everywhere. Young children, tribespeople, all discriminate - they recognise some places and people as magic, and others not.

There is no magic in bureaucracy (in a spiritual sense, this is the main point about bureaucracy); and that is why there is less and less magic in the world.

As the world is integrated into The System - so magic is suppressed and destroyed, so attention is focused on the world regarded as dead things to be manipulated. So fewer and fewer places are magical - not in the solid and dependable ways that some places used to be magical. 

And this applies to people, too. In my life there have never been many magical people in any environment, they were always a small minority; but now they are fewer, and probably for the same reason that there are fewer magical places. People who were magic, or would have been, are now substantially assimilated into The System (by the extension of mass and social media, by omni-surveillance and micro-management); and they are System-assimilated by their own choice.

If this was something that people resisted, seriously by deep conviction - their magic would up-well from the deep source of the true self...

But people do not resist, and on the contrary they have identified-with The System at a deep motivational level, at the level of primary assumptions and convictions; and thereby have joined-in with crushing their own source of magic. Hence the focus upon appearances, impressions, and manipulation of perceptions - the modern Self is become merely a Public Relations executive for the Modern Man.

Lacking the help of magical places, people, institutions... we are, as usual, thrown-back on our own resources; and must find for ourselves (from ourselves) much that used to be absorbed passively from outside.

If we value a magical world; we ourselves must become more than magic detectors; more than mobile connoisseurs of enchantment -- we must become, if only for our-selves, geniuses of magical creativity.   
  

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - and final participation

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - which I first encountered in 2015 - has become one of just a handful of books in my life that I am almost-continually re-reading. I find it fascinating and delightful, genuinely wise and deeply witty. 

Perhaps this is because it is set in that era around 1800 when  - by my understanding of the development of Man's consciousness - a wrong path was taken. By my way of reading; Strange and Norrell sketches-out what might have happened had Englishmen begun upon the right path - that path towards Final Participation.  

The Raven King is eventually seen as the author and stage manager of the events of S&N - and the guide towards Final Participation that neither Strange nor Norrell can see. 

By 1800, Modern man was alienated (the Age of Reason/ Enlightenment) and in need of healing. Magic is participation - it is the healing of the modern rift between Man and God, Man and nature and between Man and his real, spiritual, divine self.

By contrast with the Raven King; neither Strange nor Norrell are Christian - so on those grounds alone, it can be seen that their ideas are incomplete and distorted. 

Norrell seeks what might be termed a late Medieval, scholastic answer (Steiner's Intellectual Soul) - an attempted re-integration by books and study, by quasi-scientific rituals - calmly, gentlemanly, in a way socially-acceptable. (A Temenos Academy approach!). 

He intends to exclude belif-in, and interaction-with, fairies (and the Raven King) from his magical system - and yet all the magic he does is in fact indirectly dependent on that source but in an unconscious, and indeed dishonestly denied, fashion. 

Strange yearns towards a magic (and spirituality) that is instinctive and spontaneous (unsystematic) - where Men and fairies work together, and Man is (like the fairies) so immersed in nature as to be unable fully to detach himself. 

Where Norrell is the proto-scientific, scholarly, ritual magician; Strange harks back to the Shaman (and shares the Shaman's charisma). He represents the 'Romantic reaction' - and becomes friends with Byron (with whom he shares some attributes). 

This is the yearning for that earlier developmental phase called Original Participation; which, if effective, would lead to a reversal of the conscious, autonomous, deliberately chosen mode of thinking: Men would become (more like fairies) childlike again - ultimately un-conscious. 

By his behind-the-scenes activities; the Raven King ensures that magic is restored to England; but in the process, both Strange and Norrell are removed - along with nearly all the books of magic. 

At the end of the novel; magic is more widely available than ever before; but each Man must find his own way to it. The new magicians may call themselves Strange-ites or Norrell-ites, but each magician has made that personal choice, and each must choose and navigate his own path into magic (which is participation). 

Strange and Norrell ends, therefore, is a hope-full way; with the new generation of magicians representing a start at the great task of moving towards Man's next, destined development of consciousness. Ritual magic and Shamanic magic are being left-behind; and the new magic is not given a name - but it can be recognized as essentially the exact same thing as Barfield's Final Participation; or what I term Romantic Christianity.

Christianity is always in the background of Strange and Norrell; but the hopeful ending implies a Christian faith in the resurrected life eternal, or else any 'positive' outcome would be merely therapeutic and utilitarian. 'Magic' is romanticism in S&N - specifically, the 'romantic' conscious and chosen awakening of direct and experiential Christianity; as our only possible - as well as most desirable, joyous - destiny.  

Why magic doesn't happen in modern England (or, hardly-ever)

If magic was currently possible in England, in any widespread fashion, it would be a disaster - since the people are so corrupt, and so often aligned with evil.

The only safe and beneficial way in which personal magical power could happen, could be, if it were tied-to Christian motivations; if the two were made inextricable.

Magic could not be allowed as a kind of craft, skill or technique - because then it would be misused on a huge scale - since all forms of formal, abstract organisation are corrupt, depraved, evil-seeking (this is the era of the demonic-aspect 'Ahriman' - in which purposive evil takes the form of bureaucracy, systems-thinking, transhumanism, technology).

Magic would need to be - and in fact is, something that arises quite naturally and spontaneously in the course of living - and not by anybody setting-out to Do Magic. This is because magic is driven only by motivations that are in harmony with divine creation.


There is a very general frustration of 'powerlessness' felt by people - especially by young and virile people - for change, improvement, a better world. But these people are deeply corrupted by selfish and short-termist motivations; and that is why they need to be thwarted. They need to learn-from their misery, not try to attain personal power that they would certainly misuse, which they would certainly be corrupted-by.

This applies equally to the people who push for plans and schemes and systems of power that they claim are objective, impersonal, necessarily-benign - such as markets or selection processes, or idealised polities... These are motivated by the prevalent demonic forces; and are forbidden, excluded, ruled-out intrinsically - because they would be the triumph of evil.

Especially consistent power is ruled-out, Magic On Demand! - but Magic does happen unpredictably, unsought and briefly - when a persons motivation is temporarily aligned with the divine. This prevents misuse and ensures only proper use - and this quite naturally and organically...


Magic is actually 'Final Participation' - the conscious engagement with reality of a person's real self. It is the alignment of the individual self with the continuing process of divine creation. Thus, for a moment at least, a person will - by their thinking - have their originality incorporated (permanently) into creation... Thus a single individual act will be solidified and 'amplified' to become absolutely general...

In such a situation, when or if it happens, magic quite naturally follows; in the sense that the individual's real self is active and contributes some-thing new, conscious, willed - to manifestation.

This while magic is not a methodology; on the other side of the same coin if/ when a person is 'ready' (even if just for a moment) that is - when he or she is properly-motivated (which is to say a Christian, a knower and follower of Jesus - rare enough, and also one who is thinking from and with their divine self in harmony with creation - something considerably rarer, and indeed explicitly rejected by many/ most Christians)... Then it will Just Happen - it will be as-if that person's thoughts and acts were amplified beyond comprehension or rational possibility!

And yet, to an outsider (non-Christian, or Christian who chooses not to have this relationship with God) deniably so; since it would be harmonious with divine creation, hence deniable. Yet again, anyone capable (who fulfils the criteria, as it were) may recognise the provenance of creation - it doesn't all blend into one; it was, is, remains personal.


(Because Heaven - as Christians understand it - is eternal relationships between persons, between selves; not any kind of 'reabsorption' of all persons/ selves back-into divinity.)


What we have sometimes seen in history, is the remarkable 'magical' influence of aligned-men - even when they are flawed at other times, or most of the time.

Inspiration and prophecy means to be aligned (whether unconsciously, but sometimes consciously) with creative manifestation. Consequently the human creativity is amplified astonishingly - by its harmony with that of God the primary creator.

Ritual-Ceremonial Magic is nowadays (yet) another externally-imposed and institutional belief-set - hence probably net-evil

I continue to be intrigued by 'ritual' or 'ceremonial' magic, which in the UK was,  I believe, often (in the practice of such as Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight) a valid means of Christian living - up into the middle 20th century. 

But (I think) is nowadays insufficiently-effective (that is; insufficient to resist the strategic evils of our society and civilization) - or net-malign an influence (i.e. when it has 'converged' with the values of globalist-media-totalitarianism). 

This is because ritual magic was (it seems) rooted in the learning and repeated practice of directed imagination. Initiates were trained by being told what to do, and what to think about or imagine: what to visualize and to feel - while doing prescribed rituals or exercises. 

And the rituals or exercises were repeated multiple times; so that performing them either in real life, or in imagination, would lead to these inner sensory and emotional outcomes. At the end of such training, initiates were able to control their own responses to rituals, symbols, narratives ("path-workings") so as to experience them intensely. 

Beyond this, magic works by making 'contacts' with spiritual beings; and these beings were traditionally specifically named and sought - although in later years there was also the possibility of seeking a contact, making contact, and then (perhaps) finding out who that was (to a greater or lesser degree). (By this stage, Magic had begun to overlap substantially with New Age "channeling", in its various manifestations.) 

The purpose of these spirit contacts was perhaps instructional - intended to get information from the contacts; and partly the actual process of interaction with a contact may itself provide intense experiences of consciousness.  

So, for its adherents, magic could provide information about the nature and functioning of the world; and enable the initiate to have experiences of more intense consciousness - imaginations that are visual, auditory or via any other perceptual sense; and accompanied by strong emotions. 

Consequently, the motivational power of a magical kind of Christianity could be enhanced - in directions that depended upon the content of material that was being inculcated, top-down; by the magical society or individual leader.  

This type of Magical practice recognizes that Modern Man can and does (unavoidably) 'make his experienced-reality'; which is the 'reality' he knows and lives-by. Magic responds to this, by attempting to train people to make a more-or-less standard particular and desired reality for the members of a particular magical group. 

In other words; reality is given to magical adherents in a top-down fashion, analogous to the situation ins a traditional church. 

And this is exactly why I believe that ritual/ ceremonial magic has become essentially obsolete. 

Almost all institutions and formal groups have nowadays become converged with the secular-leftist materialism and its Litmus Test issues via which this agenda-of-evil is being pursued throughout Western civilization, and the places and people influenced by it. 

Since organizations are compulsorily politicized by bureaucratic means and through relentless mass-social media pressure (and usually politicized willingly, enthusiastically; since this evil corruption is so widespread among the masses); then this will affect more and more of the activities of ritual magic - the content of which is more and more leftist hence evil. 

In other words; ritual-ceremonial magic is susceptible to exactly the form of corruption that are the "Christian" churches; and for the same reasons. 

Men make their own experienced-reality - but the only true reality corresponds with that of God's creation. All others oppose created-reality, and lead away from resurrection to eternal Heavenly life. They lead, indeed; to self-chosen, self-made, self-imprisoning hells - of various kinds. 

I believe that already and increasingly; all forms of top-down influence are net-evil (that is, they contain some Good, because all that is created contains some Good - but overall and by motivation they are evil); that is. they are encouraging and enforcing one or many of the false realities in opposition to divine creation. 

As of 2023, these top-down experienced-realities are not just destructive of truth and Goodness; but often invert real values: therefore the methods of ritual magic, insofar as they retain effect, will tend to be dishonest and enforcing of lies; will tend to support and promote sin; will call ugliness beauty and reject the truly-beautiful as being ugly and oppressive.  

My conclusion is that here-and-now we cannot trust the content or motivations of any external sources - including magical traditions or societies; because they will very probably, implicitly if not explicitly, be training us in ways-of-being that net-oppose divine creation and serve the powers of evil.  

Group-ish and top-down (e.g. initiatory) practices that were possible, effective and overall Good just a century ago, or eve more recently; now almost always are the opposite; and are either merely ineffective or feeble, or else their power is harnessed against the divine and transcendental values. 

Like it or not; we are forced back upon our own powers of discernment; and the taking of active personal responsibility for our beliefs and practices.

And - as part of this - a recognition that our defense against corruption and possibility of pursuing Good is almost always by becoming aware-of, and actively-choosing-of, much that used to be unconscious, passive, taken for granted, taken on trust. 

Magic - good and evil

There are two wrong attitudes to magic - currently prevalent. The obvious one is a fascination with magic, used as a means of personal (usually sexual, but sometimes power related) gratification. This was the version that corrupted (and consolidated the corruption of) Charles Williams as it has, and does, so many others who propagate it.

But it is also wrong to shun-as-evil all forms of magic, and reference to magic - which is the path adopted by too many Christians; who render their religion merely materialistic, legalistic - and who render the supernatural incomprehensible, arbitrary; a thing to be submitted-to and obeyed merely; and in practice a mask for worldly structures of totalitarian authority.

As nearly-always with Christianity; the path of goodness resembles a middle path found by discernment - or rather, it is in actuality the path of love. Love naturally refuses to be captured or  constrained by simple rules regarding means and methods.

The problem is with magic-rejectors is that Christianity is an objectively magical religion - with Jesus Christ known (by disciples and enemies alike) as a doer of all sorts of supernatural feats, including raising a dead man - which, to one who did not regard Jesus as the Son of God, is simple necromancy: the worst kind of black magic.

So, the only reasonable stance a Christian can have towards magic is to support good, and oppose evil, magic; and the Gospels tell us that the difference is in whether the supernatural serves God's will and destiny, or is done with the aid of, and ultimately in service to, demons.

So, it is a matter of motivation. And I mean real motivation - what a person's motivation really is; not what they tell other people, nor even what they tell-themselves - but what their motivation really is.

How can we know motivation? Well, on the one hand, we can't know another person's motivation for sure in any way that can compel agreement of others (there cannot be compelling, undeniable, evidence); although we may know it for ourselves with certainly - due to intuition.

On the other hand, we must judge the motivation of others, as best we can. Yet this judgement is - like all true discernments - a thing which cannot be done by the mere algorithmic application of a flow chart. We are back to intuition - the bottom line of all judgement.

Thus is life. Because motivation is the most important aspect of Life; the most important matters are ones that are least amenable to 'proof' and procedure.

And we should embrace the fact, not try to avoid the truth, and distort it, by arbitrary application of simplistic schemes.

Magic is real: some is Good, some is evil; and we need to/ must decide for ourselves which is which... Taking-into-account what seems to be relevant evidence and what we (intuitively) regard as authoritative opinion...

But in the end making an explicitly intuitive discernment.