You should change the second question as conditional.

“Causing change to occur in conformity with will”

Isn’t that literally everything we do? Or at least try to do?

if magick is real, should there be law governing how it can be practiced? — Bret Bernhoft

Imagine drafting the documentation.

Aleister Crowley once defined magick as, "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will." — Bret Bernhoft

Did he really?

That seems broad enough to include regular, non-magickal action.

That's what I was thinking. Maybe something like The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will alone or unaided.

or “without acting”.

A magickal act of will is arguably an act.

If so, should there be laws governing how magick can be practiced? — Bret Bernhoft

Blech.

‘Will’ and ‘action’ look like pretty crufty categories so I won’t take sides there.

Insofar as the idea of ‘magick’ is just a souped-up ‘will’, I’m even less interested.

It’s plain enough what Crowley, as quoted, is getting at — that if willing it makes it so, that’s magick. (Feels like that lets in some other class of somethings, but they might be just as wonky. Contrition — that might be one.)

I don’t understand the regulation question. The only Crowley quote I had ever heard was “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

The parting of the sea is magic. Imagine if someone could just will to flood an entire country.

I don’t understand the regulation question. The only Crowley quote I had ever heard was “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, it's odd that the question of regulation would come up. It almost makes me suspect that the OP is some kind of satire.

But if we're talking about criminal law rather than mere institutional regulation, I'm staunchly in favour of punishing a person for magickally forcing someone off the edge of a cliff in the same way as if they had physically pushed them.

It would take a special task force to surveil the magic about to be willed. What could be an effective antidote to prevent a murder? Clairvoyance?

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units.

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units. — jamalrob

Yes!

I'm having a party here. But can't drink wine, milk only. Suffice it to say, I'm not drunk. But it sure is scary to think that someone could will anything without lifting a finger.

Of course it is. For what else is what you talk of other than (if not temporary) suspension of reality. We find this every day in performing arts, public radio and television, and even in the unexpected smile or wink of a random stranger. We are the magicians! Why we fail to cultivate our own talents is nothing short of abysmal.

Aside from that it's nothing that can't be likened to a debate on firearms or being really tall. Sure there's an argument but good luck enforcing that.

I do not believe magick is real, but that does not make the question of regulation less interesting. Such hypotheical question can give rise to interesting puzzles related to regulation. A colleague and I were toying with the idea of organising a conference on zombies and law for instance (think zombies and inheritance law, does the property return to the undead or is being undead suffieciently different from being alive? do they have rights to bidily integrity in the same way as live humans etc?

I am sure that if magick were a feature of current society it would be regulated, just as everyhing else, but it brings its own special problems. First we would need to know if the use of magick is detectable. For instance clairvoyance or mind reading might contravene rights to privacy if practices, but if it can be done undetected we will have a problem with reinforcing norms against practicing it. I guess there will be information campagns informing the clairvoyant about how to practice their skill ethically. If it can be detected the authorities might well outlaw the practice of magic and reserve it for professionals who have had an education in its use, but ban it for everyone else.

With more interfering magick such as changing weather patterns and summoning wild animals etc. laws need to be in place governing it because that might have severe social consequences. Imagine the impact on sea and air travel when whether patterns could change willy nilly. Imagine also the magickal conflicts that would take place when say a farmer summons rain and a hotel owner sunshine for his guests. The summoning of wild animals of course depends on the animal summoned. Summoning a wild bear in the streets might well lead to a manslaughter charge if the bear indeed kills, or reckless endangerment if it does not, but could. There would of course also be rules for the well being of such animals summoned by the conjurer in question.

The state would of course use claivoyance in the tactical police units mentioned by Jamalrob but that leads to interesting questions in regard to the principle of legality in criminal law. Can I be arrested if I ahve not committed the act yet? Or should such teams limit themselves to changing the conditions in the situation in order for a suspect not to commit a crime. Guidelines will certainly have to be issued.

A further question to consider is if everyone will have such magickal capabilities or only a few. If a few have than some individuals will be qualitatively different then others in a scale not seen here. How do we regulate them in orer for them not to grab power and how do we regulate the others not too mistrust and hate them? In short we would have to weave a dense web of regulation, but no doubt that would be done if magick was real.

edit: in some countries the use of magick is still regulated. In Iran magick and witchcraft are outlawed and fall under ' hudud crimes' on a par with a felony.

:party:

If magick were real then no matter how you tried to regulate it the magician could simply will the legislation to be changed.

Magick is - in simple terms - a kind of self-hypnosis. It is more about psychology and getting people to believe that there is some Actual ‘Magick’ whilst also being able to flip your own belief and confidence in the system/s.

All religious institutes rely, or have relied, on such uses of ‘Magick’.

Thank you for your lovely and thought-provoking dissertation, Tobias.

In terms of detection, there are two things to consider:
- is an act an act of nature or an act of magick
- if it is an act of magick, and can be identified as such, can the originator or origination be identified?

Imagine there is a group of bears approaching a house and they tear the dwellers of that unit apart. Then the bears leave, without damaging property or thieving. Not eating from the carcasses of the humans they had just torn apart.

Can it be established sufficiently that they had been summoned? Yes.

Now imagine a dog who becomes rabid and bites everyone in the house. Everyone dies a horrible rabidity-related death. Can magick action be proven here? Or even suspected? The dog could have contracted very easily rabidity by itself. By random chance. Or else it and a rabid animal could have been summoned to perform the act. This can only be decided by repeated occurrence in the community. If it occurs at too high a rate, then magick could be the souce. But what is the statistically significant number, under which the occurrence is random, and above which it is intentional?

Now, take the case of a deadlier pandemic than our current Covid. It is a disease that propagates automatically. Was the first virus created by magick or by natural selection, or by humans in a lab? Totally undecidable.

-----------

Part two is: Whodunnit? Say, it can be established that magick was involved in an illegal act. Do we know who the magus is?

If there is a list of known magi in the community, then they can be questioned... very carefully.

If magick can be performed by anyone, using magick rituals, then we must look for remanants of magick activity, and hopefully we can find footprints, fingerprints, dna evidence of the person having performed the magick.

If, however, magick needs no rituals, and it is undetectable when it is performed or brought into action, then there is no way of enforcing any rules because the perpertrators (magi) are unidentifiable.

----------

Enforcement of rules to govern magick:

- this is the most sensitive part of the process. Presumably a magus can retaliate, at least some magi, even when incarcerated. He or she can retaliate against the arresting officer, against the detectives, against the crown prosecutor, against the honourable justice. Without any possible repercussions to the magus. Do we want this to happen? Obviously we do, but the police, the law enforcement, the judges, don't.

-----------

So my opinion is that it is totally possible that magick is alive and well when considering the aspect of its relationship to regulation and enforcement. We don't hear about its illegal use, because those whose jobs are to detect and punish illegal users or performers of any act, are not stupid enough to enforce the rules against magi, for fear of obvious unavoidable retaliation; and to avoid public panic, they hush up the fact that magick acts are alive and well throughout the land.

Is magick real? — Bret Bernhoft

No. (Second question is n/a.)

"[M]agic" is a fiat schema (ideation sans mechanism) rather than a causal schema (mechanism). — 180 Proof

"Results" are just ex post facto rationalizations ... as every good stage magician will tell you. — 180 Proof

:point: :sparkle:

I am sure that if magick were a feature of current society it would be regulated, just as everyhing else, but it brings its own special problems. First we would need to know if the use of magick is detectable.


For instance clairvoyance or mind reading might contravene rights to privacy if practices, but if it can be done undetected we will have a problem with reinforcing norms against practicing it. I guess there will be information campagns informing the clairvoyant about how to practice their skill ethically. If it can be detected the authorities might well outlaw the practice of magic and reserve it for professionals who have had an education in its use, but ban it for everyone else. — Tobias

MISUSE OF MAGIC
The Galifar Code of Justice includes strict guidelines for the use of magic, as laid down by the Arcane Congress in ages past. These include the following:
Use of any spell that can inflict physical harm on another being—from magic missile to finger of death—is considered to be armed assault. This includes spells that permanently incapacitate a target, such as flesh to stone. Careless use of fire magic is treated especially harshly, due to the significant threat of property damage. If a summon spell conjures a dangerous creature that harms another person, the conjurer is liable for the actions of the beast.
Spells that incapacitate a target—such as sleep— are treated as simple assault.
Spells that tamper with the thoughts of another being—charm person, suggestion, fear—are considered to be a form of fraud.
There are also a few more obscure laws. House Ghallanda has the sole right to make use of heroes’ feast or Leomund’s secure shelter within the city limits. Rope trick and Leomund’s tiny hut can only be used in private rooms. Knock can only be used by or on behalf of the legal owner of the locked item.
The problem with magical crimes is that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Can she prove that she was charmed? The Blackened Book only investigates high-profile cases that have resulted in major damages. Otherwise, if spell use cannot be proven, the crime is not prosecuted. The forces of the law are authorized to use any form of magic in pursuit of their duties.

Tobias is a plant for the council of Sharn confirmed.

An infamous occultist named Aleister Crowley once defined magick as, "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will." Which is a definition many Pagans rely on to this day. So, generally speaking, we will also use this definition herein. — Bret Bernhoft

My arm moves when I will it. Is that magick?

My arm moves when I will it. Is that magick? — Michael

I hazard a guess that magick is another word for affirmations.

How does the use of words (casting spells and stuff like that) enter into the concept of magick? Does Donald Trump

summoning wild animals — Tobias

qualify as an example of someone who uses magick?

I suppose if the causal connection between the person's will, and the occurrence could be established, then the person is legally responsible. But doesn't "magic" imply that the causal connection remains hidden? So I think "magick" is an oxymoron. You are saying that the person is necessarily the cause, in a situation where there is no evidence to conclude that the person is necessarily the cause. And the legal issue you raise is just a sham, because you are asking if the person ought to be held responsible in a situation where the person cannot be proven to be responsible. Of course that is a non-starter.

For reasons that seem both obvious and opaque magicians have been at the forefront of the public skeptical movement (the magicians Harry Houdini, James Randi, for example, were debunkers of the paranormal). Odd that if you take skepticism to its logical conclusion, the universe itself could be an magic show (René Descartes' deus deceptor, Gilbert Harman's brain in a vat). So a little skepticism means no magic but dollops of skepticism and magic is back in the game.

I suppose if the causal connection between the person's will, and the occurrence could be established, then the person is legally responsible. But doesn't "magic" imply that the causal connection remains hidden? So I think "magick" is an oxymoron. You are saying that the person is necessarily the cause, in a situation where there is no evidence to conclude that the person is necessarily the cause. And the legal issue you raise is just a sham, because you are asking if the person ought to be held responsible in a situation where the person cannot be proven to be responsible. Of course that is a non-starter. — Metaphysician Undercover

You did not read my post very carefully. A. your definition of magick is not wildly shared. Magick does not mean that the causal connection is hidden, though in our world the mechanism would be pretty miraculous. However, as I did in my post, assuming that magick does exist, if I may by way of reciting certain formulas cause a creature to appear I am just as much the cause of its appearance as I am when I call my dog and command him to attack.

B. The legal question whether someone is to be held responsible is a different question from whether his or her responsibility can be proven. If some commits the perfect crime and murders his wife, then he is still responsible for her death. He still needs to be acquitted of the murder because it cannot be proven, but that does not mean he is not responsible for it. You may well object that magick does not exist, as assumption I share, but the whole point of the post was to show what could or would happen if it did. Such exercises are not uncommon. The pentagon drafted a scenario analysis of what to do in the case of a zombie apocalypse. By creating such what if scenario's you may understand your own legal and political arrangements better.

The forces of the law are authorized to use any form of magic in pursuit of their duties.

Tobias is a plant for the council of Sharn confirmed. — fdrake

Hah! That is cool. However do consider the anti-constitutional nature of the last line. It is the criminal code of magick a police state would draft. I have no protection against true seeing spells, against clairvoyance, I might be charmed into cooperating against my own interest or to extort a confession etc. It would accommodate a society of mass magical surveillance.

I read a lot of Crowley when I was younger. Peter Carrol too, and the Kybalion. Early 20th century occultism is certainly interesting. You get a blend of emerging sciences, old occult traditions, esoteric Eastern philosophy, etc. all blended together.

As a whole though, I eventually found it a bit of a let down as a topic. Reason being is that these are synchretist blends borrowing from tradition to put a patina of authority on their systems. You get a lot of Platonism that is just dressed up in obscurantism to seem more mystical. I still like some, Meditations On The Tarot is a classic. Authors are careful to imply magick is more than just a psychological trick you enact upon yourself- that you can change the weather or the stock market with sigils and ritual, but are never explicit about it because it's a claim that is falsifiable. I find the whole scene to be fairly frustrating too, because if you call out these objections, you "just haven't understood" the esoteric writers.

The other problem is that the systems tend to cherry pick and bastardize other systems. So, Quabbalah in Crowley is not like actually reading a scholar on Kabbalah such as Schloem at all.

So is magick real? I suppose in some sense it is, in that there are practiced for creating mystical experiences. These experiences can lead to great insights. For example, Boehme's insight on the semiotics of sublation and the necessity of being to exist to define any Godhead. This in turn inspired formalized systems from Hegel to Whitehead.

However, I feel like Crowley type systems fall into the problem of moving beyond talking about mystical experience, and into making claims (never explicitly) that you can influence the physical world through magical processes that defy all confirmation.

Actually my post was directed toward Bret and the op. I just inserted a line from your post. so I put quotations to give proper credit to you, for that phrase.

That's what I was thinking. Maybe something like The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will alone or unaided. — jamalrob

or “without acting”. — Srap Tasmaner

Careful ST, now you're stepping on us Taoists - wu wei, acting without acting.