Basal Magick

[The Hammer]

Below is a list of the elements of what I consider to make up Basal Magick. Or the Base Components of Magick that we work with. You will find that I do not have a place for Words, and while words are powerful, they are several orders above base Magick.

Feeling/emotion

Numbers/quantity (debatable)

Sound

Color

Shapes/Patterns

Spatiality/Size

Sensation (hot/cold/pressure) [variable
definitions possible]

Taste (sweet/sour/salty/Savoury)

I put these down, because they are how I find that we categorize the World around us. But are very broad and flexible in the ways they can be used as descriptors, not necessarily requiring verbal or written language.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would agree with these, though would categorize numbers and quantity closer to words because they are dependent on relationships and based on defining things through some of the other components, like sounds, shapes/patterns, spatiality/size.

 

[The Hammer]

I would agree with these, though would categorize numbers and quantity closer to words because they are dependent on relationships and based on defining things through some of the other components, like sounds, shapes/patterns, spatiality/size.

That was why I left that as debatable. It could be a bit higher up between words and the rest maybe.

But many cultures even without specific words for numbers as we think of them, they have words or meaning for things like Single Thing, Few Things, Many Things. This is why I tried to balance it with quantity. I could express my desire for 7 sandwiches without using the word 7, with gestures and an arrangement of fingers.

 

[The Hammer]

I guess my next issues is what's the next level up from my Base List, elemental combination (combining what's above), or another list of upper supports?

Hmmm

 

[crossfire]

What about transformational concepts? (As in alchemy and other systems)

 

[The Hammer]

What about transformational concepts? (As in alchemy and other systems)

As an addendum, or as the next step up?

I could see this as the next stage.

 

[crossfire]

As an addendum, or as the next step up?

I could see this as the next stage.

I see the transformation concept as the primary magickal focus, with the above basals serving as the symbolic/communicative part.

 

[The Hammer]

I see the transformation concept as the primary magickal focus, with the above basals serving as the symbolic/communicative part.

I see transformation as combining these above components, throwing intent into the fray.

But I understand your point of view.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That was why I left that as debatable. It could be a bit higher up between words and the rest maybe.

But many cultures even without specific words for numbers as we think of them, they have words or meaning for things like Single Thing, Few Things, Many Things. This is why I tried to balance it with quantity. I could express my desire for 7 sandwiches without using the word 7, with gestures and an arrangement of fingers.

Mind if I expand on my thinking about this? My philosophy concerning math informs my own spirituality quite a bit. But I also don't want to derail your thread with pontification.

 

[The Hammer]

Mind if I expand on my thinking about this? My philosophy concerning math informs my own spirituality quite a bit. But I also don't want to derail your thread with pontification.

No, please. Let's.

Never a lot of discussion in the Magic DIR.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No, please. Let's.

Never a lot of discussion in the Magic DIR.

Sweet!

First of all, I like making the controversial claim math is subjective. In order to say something as simple as 1+1=2, you not only have to define the terms used, but the subjects being counted, and that requires a subject: you.

Let's take the fingers example: "Fingers" exist (even fundamentally as something observed) because we put ourselves in relation to them by pulling (through discriminating sensory information modeled in a way that increases fitness for the specific individual) "hand" away from the rest of its environment and separating "fingers" from the hand and each other. We then relate them as individuals to each other in terms of quantity. This is highly subjective; I choose which fingers I relate quantitatively. It could be my right index and middle, my right index and left middle, both pinky fingers, or even my right index and my wife's left ring finger (even though she is in another room).

Thus, I see numerical operations as existing in the same level as linguistics, in which we subjectively pull things from the environment with our tools of consciousness and relate them together.

For me, this is the basis of co-creation. My reality may be shared, but my relationships are unique to me as an individual. Even stating "I am an individual" involves me removing my developed biological being and psychology from the environment that spawned and shaped it, hence the "co" in "co-created."

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I guess my next issues is what's the next level up from my Base List, elemental combination (combining what's above), or another list of upper supports?

Hmmm

I would suggest mental elements such as:

Inspiration
Intention
Association
Emotion

These allow us to understand the basal elements and directs the actions to take including combining.

Edited to add: I would put logic and reason here as well.

 

[crossfire]

Sweet!

First of all, I like making the controversial claim math is subjective. In order to say something as simple as 1+1=2, you not only have to define the terms used, but the subjects being counted, and that requires a subject: you.

Let's take the fingers example: "Fingers" exist (even fundamentally as something observed) because we put ourselves in relation to them by pulling (through discriminating sensory information modeled in a way that increases fitness for the specific individual) "hand" away from the rest of its environment and separating "fingers" from the hand and each other. We then relate them as individuals to each other in terms of quantity. This is highly subjective; I choose which fingers I relate quantitatively. It could be my right index and middle, my right index and left middle, both pinky fingers, or even my right index and my wife's left ring finger (even though she is in another room).

Thus, I see numerical operations as existing in the same level as linguistics, in which we subjectively pull things from the environment with our tools of consciousness and relate them together.

For me, this is the basis of co-creation. My reality may be shared, but my relationships are unique to me as an individual. Even stating "I am an individual" involves me removing my developed biological being and psychology from the environment that spawned and shaped it, hence the "co" in "co-created."

I agree with you that mathemagicks is a language. Even the great mathemagician Pythagoras claimed that each number has its own unique, subjective vibration. The Chinese also have their own subjective numerical associations.
I find the mathematical operators (+, -, *, /, ^, etc) to be important in directing actions that can also be applied in mathemagical workings.

 

[The Hammer]

Sweet!

First of all, I like making the controversial claim math is subjective. In order to say something as simple as 1+1=2, you not only have to define the terms used, but the subjects being counted, and that requires a subject: you.

Let's take the fingers example: "Fingers" exist (even fundamentally as something observed) because we put ourselves in relation to them by pulling (through discriminating sensory information modeled in a way that increases fitness for the specific individual) "hand" away from the rest of its environment and separating "fingers" from the hand and each other. We then relate them as individuals to each other in terms of quantity. This is highly subjective; I choose which fingers I relate quantitatively. It could be my right index and middle, my right index and left middle, both pinky fingers, or even my right index and my wife's left ring finger (even though she is in another room).

Thus, I see numerical operations as existing in the same level as linguistics, in which we subjectively pull things from the environment with our tools of consciousness and relate them together.

For me, this is the basis of co-creation. My reality may be shared, but my relationships are unique to me as an individual. Even stating "I am an individual" involves me removing my developed biological being and psychology from the environment that spawned and shaped it, hence the "co" in "co-created."

Yup, I agree that Math is subjective, and essentially a language unto itself. Which is why the numerical operators +, -, and = for example, have word associations that allow us to write word problems (plus, minus, and Is).

Shoot, once you get into Calculus a lot of the numbers go away entirely, and it becomes mostly letters and concepts (yes there are still numbers of course).

This is why I hesitated adding numbers to my main list. But did so, because why not ahve the discussion .