I've started a new FAQ page at my website on magick, metaphysics, the occult, philosophy, and spirituality.

I plan to keep this page up to date with my current perspective and theories from my research and refer to it when I get questions.

Read it here: liminalwarmth.com/esoterica-freq…
In addition to that page which will always be updated with the latest info, I'll post the Q&A sections into this thread as I write them so you can refer to them here as well.
Section 1. General Questions
I. What do you mean by esoteric knowledge or esoterica?
I'm using the term esoteric here not to refer to any particular movement or philosophy, but rather in the literal dictionary sense of "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest."
My interest in esoterica has a distinctly occult and spiritual flair to it, and my research covers an extremely broad range of topics including general spirituality (most major religions), magick, divination, [...]
[...] parapsychology and psi studies, meditation, supernatural phenomena, trance states, near death experiences, theoretical physics, psychedelic substances, and neurobiology.
II. So... you're studying magick? And a bunch of other fringe stuff?
Kind of. It's all related and it's complicated to explain why and how in a single paragraph or tweet. Saying I'm studying "magick" or "occult topics" is the easiest and fastest shorthand way to give most people a high-level summary of what I'm interested in [...]
[...] but it's also completely wrong because of the popular culture baggage associated with those terms.
Unfortunately, this area of study is brimming with nuance and complexity that isn't covered well by standard formal education, and everyone comes into it with their own unique baggage, beliefs, and misconceptions.
Unless you take the time to really try to grasp what I'm talking about, you're going to misunderstand what I mean. Reading this entire FAQ is a good start.
III. What do you mean you're doing "research"? You don't have a PhD, aren't associated with any institutions, and don't seem to be publishing any formal papers.
I mean precisely that: I'm doing independent research. I'm curious about the nature of reality and interested in understudied and overlooked areas of human experience that appear to offer novel mechanisms for engaging with it.
Because I care most about answering my questions to my own satisfaction and can self-fund this inquiry, I don't see much point in investing time or energy in formal institutions that might introduce unwanted complexity to my investigation.
My process involves identifying key research areas and digging up credible scientific research, theories, and first-hand accounts of people who claim to have experience with them, and then looking for commonalities and constructing theories to explain what might be happening.
In pursuit of this goal, I both do my own primary research via reading and experimentation and also pay an independent team of researchers to annotate historical books of interest to me so that I can quickly survey them for interesting information.
The research team is partially funded by selling the summarized notes of these books under my Alden Marshall brand on Amazon.com. I use a combination of Roam Research and annotated PDFs and eBooks to document my personal notes and theories.
IV. How can you draw any good conclusions when you're not subjecting your theories to rigorous testing via the scientific method in a lab?
I'm not really interested in proving anything except to myself, so I'm content to present theories that seem plausible to me as a result of my research and let others perform more rigorous testing or validate the theories for themselves via their own inquiry.
I do my best to keep an eye on my own biases, to corroborate ideas from multiple sources, and to approach the research first from a lens of rational materialism to keep myself grounded in existing science as much as possible, [...]
but it's challenging to explore this space without going into philosophy, theoretical physics, and metaphysics because we may not have the right tools or methods to make sense of the phenomena with our current unified models of reality.
Some theories suggest that inconsistency, evasiveness, and an inability to use them for practical applications may be an inherent feature of their purpose, which would largely prevent the type of bounded and controlled lab-based research to which we are usually accustomed.
While this possibility is often dismissed immediately by strict materialists, there is no logical requirement for phenomena whose scope, attributes, and purpose we don't yet understand to adhere to a level of consistency or work with methodology we're currently comfortable with.
Elements of these phenomena which appear to defy common sense or violate causality may simply reflect a misunderstanding of what is actually occurring.
V. Why are you wasting your time on this when it's unfalsifiable and obviously fake to almost everyone who's educated or smart?
1. Magick is not obviously fake. This idea is a fallacy unique to certain intellectual circles which are closely tied to academia and materialist/atheist perspectives of the world and which tend to reject most forms of spirituality that don't fit into that worldview.
People who hold and express this belief tend to have not thoroughly examined any amount of evidence and are taking it on faith, having heard it secondhand from someone else or absorbed it from their culture.
This belief completely fails to account for extensive and well-documented reports of phenomena which might be described as "magick", which we can't explain today, and which stubbornly persist in spite of the claim that they're "not real."
Furthermore, if you press people on their actual views and experiences, the vast majority of living people either have beliefs or experiences that don't nicely mesh with an atheist materialist perspective grounded in physics as we understand it.
Because we have no unifying framework to even define what "magick" is supposed to encompass, no two people tend to mean exactly the same thing even when they appear to agree at a surface level that "magick isn't real."
Your own, limited perception of what's meant by "magick" may be getting in the way of your ability to understand the concepts surrounding unusual phenomena, and until you get specific about what you mean and examine the associated evidence, you can't make any claims about it.
2. Magick may be falsifiable. Our understanding of the mechanisms by which magick or other supernatural phenomena may be occurring are incomplete, and thus it is premature to claim that it's non-falsifiable as a class.
As we develop better models of the mechanisms underpinning our reality and become more precise with our specific theories and predictions, we may develop better tools to be able to prove those theories in a manner that would satisfy strict materialists.
3. Our understanding of reality is not static. Our best models to describe how reality works routinely change in the face of new discoveries and evidence. Newtonian mechanics don't consistently work with Quantum mechanics. The Earth is round instead of flat as we once believed.
We no longer attempt to explain the world in terms of classical elements. Concepts we now take as common sense, such as the idea that washing your hands reduces the transmission of disease, were widely ridiculed and discredited when first suggested.
The point is that assuming that something must be untrue because modern science doesn't recognize it in a mainstream way is foolish and hubristic, not to mention that such a perspective directly violates the actual spirit of scientific inquiry.
Poking at phenomena that don't "fit the model" and trying to understand what might be happening there is the essence of science, and that's what I believe I'm doing here.
4. I'm not wasting my time. I enjoy my research and get a lot of personal value out of it in ways I couldn't possibly have anticipated when I began to study these phenomena.
My studies contribute to novel ways of seeing the world, provide additional tools to enhance my psychological well-being, and increase my level of connection with both other people and the world around me.
Even if I come to the end of my life with no unified model of magical theory that produces independently verifiable results, I'll have enriched my own life in the pursuit of it, and I'm already seeing the benefits.
VI. I heard that you're a self-described "desert witch" who lives in a van, you think tarot is real, you believe in cryptozoology, and that you bought a bunch of souls. What the hell? Why should I listen to anything you say?
This is really just a fun exercise in how words shape your perception. That's certainly one way someone could describe me, but it would be both wrong and incomplete.
I prefer the term "sorceress" to "witch," but either way I'm an amateur practitioner at best and much more of an independent researcher. I currently live in a lovely Class A recreational vehicle which I use to travel around the country while I conduct my research.
I have a permanent home base on a 40-acre plot of property in the Arizona desert where I like to hang out in the cooler months when I'm not visiting friends.
My views on cryptozoology and tarot are complicated and better explained further down this FAQ and in my other writing, but I make no definitive claims about either and simply present observations and theories.
You don't have to listen to anything I say and I don't really care whether you do or not.

The soul purchase thing is totally real, though: liminalwarmth.com/the-questionab…
Section 2. Definitions, Boundaries, and Examples
I. What do you mean when you say "magick"?
This is both a complicated question and the one which I am most frequently asked. As I explained in Section 1, I use "magick" as a concise and convenient descriptor of a fuzzy, loosely linked conceptual space that spans topics from religious ritual to neurobiology.
While some of the topics I draw in are more widely accepted and studied than others, they all appear to have application for explaining two broad categories of experiences that humans have which I would classify as "magick."
Category I (C1): Physical outcomes which violate causality.
The first category include material outcomes which appear to violate causality in physics: sigils are drawn, prayers are prayed, or intentions are stated, and the desired outcome occurs even though there is no apparent link between the activity and the outcome which comes to pass
I also broadly include physical phenomena with no apparent cause in this category (raining frogs, spontaneous combustion, etc).
Category II (C2): Perception of information without an apparent source.
The second category is revelatory or divinatory in nature. An actor, through either intention or accident, appears to know or perceive information with no apparent source or method of attaining that information.
I also broadly include visions, dreams, and hallucinations in this category.
Note that the common element to both categories is the ability to receive information or act on matter in a way that seems to violate our current understanding of physics from a strict materialist lens.
To apply a spiritual lens would be pointless here, as most spiritual belief systems have their own explanations for such phenomena.
Magic(k) is written here with a "k" to differentiate it from stage magic, which does not violate causality, and while I dislike this convention it significantly predates my research and will thus be used in spite of my aesthetic distaste.
This is simply a categorical descriptor of the different classes of phenomena I'm interested in studying, rather than a claim about the validity of any particular expression of either category of magick.
Generally, phenomena that fall into Category II are more widely-accepted by materialists as "real" than Category I phenomena because they are both more frequent and easier to explain via hypotheses that do not violate physics.
II. Can you provide some more specific examples of phenomena that might fall into Category I or Category II of your definition of magick?
I once again want to stress that this is a categorization of areas of study rather than a claim that any of these particular expressions of the category are valid, but I can certainly illustrate some examples of each.
Examples of C1 phenomena:
* Prayer. A devout Christian with a terminally ill relative prays to God that he might heal them, and his relative subsequently experiences a miraculous recovery that doctors are unable to explain.
* Chaos Magick. A practicing chaos magician who is unsuccessful at dating draws a sigil to find a romantic partner and activates it before intentionally forgetting about it. A month later they bump into a wonderful person, fall deeply in love, and get married.
* Placebos. A doctor prescribes a placebo drug to a patient with an illness and instructs the patient to take it daily. Several months later, the illness is cured.
* Manifestation. A man who wants to meet a particular celebrity he admires attempts to manifest the meeting by focusing his conscious attention and intent on that outcome. Through an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, he is soon seated next to the celebrity on a flight.
* Rains of animals. Flightless animals of a single category such as worms, fish, or frogs rain down on a small town from the sky with no apparent source or cause.
* Ritual Magick. A shaman in a small village performs a ritual intending to curse a rival in a nearby town, and the rival shortly thereafter sickens and dies from an unknown illness.
* Levitation. A religious adherent appears to repeatedly levitate several feet in the air simply by allowing themselves to be overcome with an appreciation of the divine.
* Telekinesis. After many hours of focused meditation and concentration, a magickal practitioner causes a flame to bend and weave inside of a glass encasement with no external source of air or pressure.
Examples of C2 phenomena:
* Remote Viewing. An individual reputed to have paranormal psychic abilities is tested in a military laboratory and produces specific and correct information about the location and description of intended targets with 20% accuracy.
* Divination. A small business owner uses tarot cards and receives predictions about their new business venture which later turn out to have been entirely accurate.
* Spontaneous Hallucination. An experienced meditator begins to have spontaneous visual and auditory hallucinations of demonic entities following them and interacting with them which they are unable to voluntarily cease.
* Prophetic Dreams. A lawyer has a dream in which the opposing counsel for an upcoming trial makes unlikely and novel arguments for the case which later match the actual arguments presented by the opposing counsel in court.
* Revelation. An angel appears to a rural woman and tells her the location of valuable relics on her farmland. She investigates and finds historical relics precisely in the unlikely location where she was instructed to look.
* Spirit Communication. Under the influence of a psychedelic drug, a geometric entity provides instructions to the user on how they can improve their psychological well-being, and the user subsequently makes progress on resolving long-standing mental issues.
This is far from an exhaustive list of phenomena which might fall into either category, but hopefully it gives you an idea of the boundaries I'm drawing as I describe my research.
Note that there are also reports of experiential phenomena which don't fit neatly into either C1 or C2 but have elements of both.
Recorded human encounters throughout history with non-human entities (aliens, fae, demons) frequently exhibit a blend of surreal, dreamlike, or prophetic qualities (C2) [...]
[...] while also providing physical evidence of apparent material violations of physics such as gifted objects, unexplainable wounds or illnesses, and physical evidence of their presence at the scene of the alleged encounter (C1).
Note also that there are examples of things that would have seemed inexplicable and been placed in one of these categories prior to our widespread acceptance of the phenomenon, such as Lucid Dreaming.
This is now widely studied and accepted in spite of still not being easily explicable, and I still place it in C2 and consider it relevant to my research.
These categories define the boundaries and provide qualitative descriptions for the types of subjective experiences I want to explore and understand, but are not themselves explanations or hypotheses for what might be happening when someone experiences such an event.
III. Which of these phenomena do you actually think are real?
This is another tricky question to answer, because I honestly don't know. There have been numerous, well-documented cases of both C1 and C2 phenomena throughout all of human history and up to present day.
I have personally experienced examples of several expressions of both C1 and C2 phenomena that I'm at a loss to explain. Some expressions of each category of phenomena are better studied and have more conventional evidence than others.
What many of the expressions of these phenomena have in common is that they are difficult to produce either consistently or on demand, especially in controlled and verifiable settings, and even when a subject of study reports frequent occurrences of a particular phenomenon.
While I don't believe every story I hear, it's abundantly clear that these experiences and phenomena are real for at least some of the people who report encountering or producing them, and some of the reports are very difficult to discredit without some extreme justifications.
Without the security of being able to reproduce results empirically, we're left to draw conclusions from unlikely commonalities between separate accounts and direct experience to form hypotheses about what may be happening.
Because of this, it's impossible for me to definitively claim that any particular expression of C1 or C2 phenomena is "real" in a way that would be satisfying to a materialist skeptic in the absence of such evidence.
All I can offer you is some high-level hypotheses that I find plausible as a result of my experiences and evidence from my ongoing research:
1) Magick is "real." It seems very likely that apparent violations of physics expressed as both C1 and C2 phenomena do sometimes occur, and that these violations of physics can sometimes be produced intentionally by human actors.
There is too much qualitative and historical evidence of such phenomena and too many unexplained reports from credible, living persons who have experienced such phenomena to simply write it off categorically as a hoax or a misperception of reality.
2) Controlled effects are inconsistent. Decades of parapsychology research have attempted to consistently and empirically provide evidence for manifestations of both C1 and C2 phenomena in conventional laboratory settings with appropriate controls.
While their results are sometimes interesting, they are not consistent (and sometimes are inconsistent in bizarre and completely unexpected ways that contradict one another completely from study to study).
Many hypotheses for why this might be have been advanced, which I will go into later, but it's clear that we do not have an appropriate grasp of the mechanics of magickal phenomena to apply conventional methods of study to them at this time and get widely-acceptable results.
3) Belief, emotion, concentration, and attention may play an important role in producing effects. Nearly all schools of magick and spirituality recommend improving concentration when attempting to produce outcomes, and excitatory and inhibitory altered mental states are common.
Tools and props are often used to heighten the emotions or belief of practitioners via association of the physical item with the intended vehicle producing the outcome (as with correspondences in sympathetic magic).
Note also that there is evidence suggesting that not only the belief of the practitioner matters, but possibly also the belief of all witnesses, participants, or observers of either the magickal action or the intended outcome.
4) Nonhuman entities which interact with humans are "real." Regardless of your explanation for the phenomena, it is clear that humans have credibly reported encounters with nonhuman beings which showcase apparently supernatural abilities.
These reports occur throughout recorded history and into modern times, often accompanied by persuasive and inexplicable evidence, and such encounters exhibit elements of both C1 and C2 phenomena in ways that suggest they may be linked.
IV. Why are you bringing nonhuman entities into this discussion? Doesn't branching into UFOs, aliens, demons, and fae seem kind of ridiculous and distracting from your core research?
Yes and no. Up until recently I was reasonably confident that magick as a phenomenon was real (though inconsistent and unexplained) and that non-corporeal entities such as spirits or demons were implausible but explainable as subjective expressions of human psychology.
I was extremely dismissive of accounts of UFOs, aliens, and fae. It seemed like a grab bag of fringe concepts to me to entertain the whole of nonhumans as a body and somehow relate it back to magick.
However, I have been persuaded by the work of Jacques Vallée and others who have studied historical accounts of nonhuman entities that there is not only a significant body of evidence for contact with mysterious and evasive nonhuman entities, [...]
[...] but that such accounts have startling and consistent similarities between them throughout history and across cultures which lend additional credibility to otherwise isolated and bizarre reports which we might otherwise attribute to fiction or insanity.
Vallée proposes a theory that all such accounts of nonhuman beings are expressions of a singular core phenomenon which expresses itself in different presentations that vary with the observer's time period, location, culture, and expectations.
He goes on to build a case that the purpose of this phenomenon may be the breaking down of old belief systems and the implementation of new ones in humans.
This is notable and relevant due to the historical association of both C1 and C2 magick with nonhuman entities such as spirits, gods, and demons, whose appearance and behavior can be linked to the nonhuman manifestations catalogued by Vallée and others.
If Vallée's hypothesis is correct, and the purpose of such encounters is shaping human spiritual beliefs for some unknown purpose, [...]
[...] this would explain why the apparent outcome and hypothetical function of engagement with C1 and C2 phenomena appears to also be spiritual development in humans, as has been suggested by the work of parapsychologist J.E. Kennedy.
While these theories are necessarily highly speculative, the associations themselves in the reports are readily apparent and merit further research.
For my purposes, at this time I'm accepting the hypothesis advanced by Vallée as tentatively correct and assuming that reports of UFOs, aliens, fae, spirits, angels, and demons are all expressions of the same phenomenon, and I investigate their link to magick through this lens.
V. What's next? Why not vampires, ghosts, zombies, bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster? Are they all related to magick too?
I have not seen any persuasive evidence, even theoretical, of the existence of corporeal undead or cryptids. I have not deeply studied cryptozoology, and I don't consider it relevant to my research on magick at this time.
While this may seem like an arbitrary distinction, accounts of cryptids and corporeal undead differ significantly in their presentation, reported attributes, cultural impact, and methods of engagement when compared to the nonhuman entities discussed in the previous section.
While some of these cryptids and corporeal undead are purported to exhibit characteristics that would map to C1 and C2 magickal phenomena, they do not appear to be related to the understanding or human expression of magickal phenomena, and are thus less interesting to me.
I also find it difficult to accept that persistent, corporeal beings which interact with humans, however elusive, would remain undocumented in the face of modern technology.
The difference from the prior entities is that those entities are frequently reported to appear and disappear at will and to control the mechanisms of their manifestation to humans, which makes our inability to collect conclusive evidence on them more persuasive to me.
Ghosts (or the non-corporeal manifestation of dead humans) are in a category of their own here, and I don't have a lot to say about them right now.
They're mildly interesting to me as a frequent subject of divination and mediumship practices (both C2), but I haven't read any compelling theories which would cause me to think they'd exist outside of the boundaries of C2 phenomena as independent and autonomous entities.
I may update my opinion on their existence as my research progresses, but at this time I am mildly skeptical that they exist in anything like the form frequently presented by popular culture.
Added a new question to Section 1. General Questions:

"What are your goals when you present or discuss the results of this research?"
By forcing myself to clearly state my ideas for a public audience, I'm both ensuring that there's a publicly-critiqued level of consistency and logic to what I'm saying and also deepening my own understanding of the material through a secondary, written synthesis of the concepts.
In addition to this, there are three major issues I see with the most common methods of studying magickal theory that I am attempting to correct via the presentation of my work:
1. Without appropriate context in the domain, it is very difficult to know which books, sources, or teachers are a worthwhile investment of one's time and which sources present false or misleading information.
A glut of misinformation has been created by the marketability of magick as a popular concept and the status which can be derived from a person successfully masquerading as an expert with mysterious, hidden powers.
To a person who suspects it's all nonsense but wants to learn more about it anyway, the works of charlatans can look just like works that actually contain useful truths, and there's no good way to differentiate the two classes of information upon initial contact with the topic.
2. Many of the "classic" texts of magick that are claimed to contain useful truths by credible sources, even if you find your way to them, are very unapproachable for people without a lot of domain-specific conceptual scaffolding in place.
They tend to be written with extensive use of jargon, symbols, and metaphors and do not adequately explain what is metaphor and what is meant to be taken literally.
This approach to conveying information is often (apparently) intended as an exercise to train the reader in working with logical contradiction and expanded modes of thinking about reality, which it may do, but it also tends to confuse people genuinely seeking basic knowledge.
A new reader will frequently bounce off of the material, concluding that it's all nonsense, because they don't have the appropriate context to appreciate what's being said (which is entirely the fault, or intent, of the author).
3. Many practitioners of magick are bad teachers even if they possess the actual necessary experience to teach and have good intentions.
This is because most _people_ simply aren't naturally skilled teachers who take the time to communicate clearly in ways that will resonate with their student.
This is made worse by the tendency of some practitioners to intentionally provide misleading, confusing, or self-contradictory answers to sincere questions, either to serve their own purposes or conceal their inexperience.
Because of these problems, questions are rarely answered clearly, accurately, and directly in this domain in a way that allows new entrants to build good mental models for operating in the conceptual space.
These three issues contribute to a large inferential distance between a person who has never seriously considered magick as "real" before and an entry point for serious consideration of magickal theory.
Many magicians also make the claim that this barrier to entry is intentional and desirable, but the reasons given for this are often highly questionable.
They appear to be more about keeping the discipline shrouded in mystery and intrigue (providing status to current practitioners) than to actually being the most effective way to initiate people into a safe and effective exploration of magickal theory and experimentation.
I personally value epistemic clarity and enjoy sharing information, and I feel strongly that serious inquiry in this field is held back by the three factors outlined above.
I also believe that there is value in clearly outlining both the risks and the benefits of magickal study and practice in common, easy-to-understand language, so that people can make well-informed decisions about whether it's something that they want to spend time pursuing.
One of the key goals for my research and writing is uncovering practical and applicable information behind all of these layers of obfuscation and then building clear, methodical, and universal tools to bridge the inferential distance required to understand this space.
My hope is that by providing a thorough and well-reasoned framework with clear language and definitions, I can accelerate the process of internalizing the conceptual scaffolding necessary to allow a wider audience to seriously examine magick through direct personal experience.
(The FAQ has now been updated with a version number, 0.2 as of this tweet, and a full list of the questions that I plan to have answered when I reach version 1.0 of the FAQ)
New questions and answers added to the end of Section 1. General Questions:

IX. What evidence is there for the non-materialist worldview that seems to be required to entertain many of the ideas in this FAQ?
I don't think a non-materialist worldview is required to consider the ideas present in this FAQ because I've constructed it in such a way that I don't make any concrete claims without evidence tied back to a materialist understanding of the world.
Where I'm working with speculation, theory, or subjective experiences, I say so. Where I don't have any idea how a thing works, I say so.
My chain of logic is rooted in inconsistencies I noticed in the mechanics of how I was taught that the world works, and then I try to unpack what might be happening using while looking for as much evidence as possible to either validate or invalidate my models.
If there is an overarching system governing the phenomena discussed here, and the phenomena do occur, it shouldn't actually be a violation of the laws of nature. It simply means we don't yet have the tools to describe what's happening well at this time.
All that's required to engage with the concepts in this FAQ is to be able to consider novel ideas from a rational perspective, grounded in your own experience, as an invitation for further exploration on this topic.
X. Given that you're both a fiction writer and financially profiting as a result of this research, why should I believe that anything you're saying is true, rather than an attempt to make money or build a platform for status or attention?
You shouldn't believe that anything I'm saying is necessarily true. I'd prefer you engage with the ideas and evidence on their own merits, with an open mind and your faculty for reasoning, and come to your own conclusions (whether or not they match mine).
As for whether I'm simply making up lies for money or attention, all I can say is that I'm not, and offer you these points as evidence:
1) I don't make enough money off of this to have a financial motivation for it, and I already have a sufficient level of income from my consulting and my business to live comfortably and spend as much time as I want doing things like studying magic because I'm curious about it.
2) There are easier ways to make extra money if that were a primary goal for me, and if I wanted to sell pop culture magic theory I'd be making much stronger claims about how experienced I was and what magic could do to improve people's material wealth than you'll find here.
3) If I wanted to write fiction I'd just write fiction instead of lengthy, carefully-worded statements describing the current state of my research.
4) I have plenty of ways to get attention and build a platform that aren't shilling magic. I'm genuinely interested in this topic and trying to be as clear, rational, and cautious as I can with it.
Updated questions for Section 2. Definitions, Boundaries, and Examples:
VI. How can you confidently claim that all religious systems, ritual, magickal technique, and spiritual practices are engaging with the same core underlying mechanics, can be grouped as like things, and are related to one another?
I'm neither confidently claiming anything at this stage nor am I trying to present myself as someone with special authority in this subject. What I'm doing is sharing my observations and being as transparent as possible with my method and framework for thinking about all of this.
What I have observed so far is that many spiritual paths and belief systems (among other tools) appear to lead to reports of experiencing qualitatively similar expressions of C1 and C2 phenomena.
My theory about this is that all of these systems, which are ultimately expressions of belief and ritual, tap into the same "thing," which appears to be a real thing at least in the experiential realm, and produce similar kinds of results to varying degrees.
By analyzing the similarities across disciplines, I hope to be able to cut through the differences that might be unnecessary and try to wrap my head around the mechanics of both action and response that humans may be tapping into in order to experience or produce C1 or C2 effects
VII. People sometimes claim that all kinds of creative activities are "magick," including storytelling, coding, and language itself. Is all technology magick? How does this mesh with your definition of magick?
I'm torn about this. Because there is a direct cause and a direct effect with these disciplines that we can explain using conventional methods, it feels like categorizing these things as "magick" as I'm defining it doesn't work.
I feel that presenting coding or language as "literal magick" (as people often do), confuses the issue and makes it harder for people to pin down the domain space and to speak precisely about possible causes for poorly-understood phenomena.
It feels sloppy to me to claim that "coding is magick" just because you're using symbols to produce emotional and physical changes in the world--there's a known logic chain that can be followed to explain those changes.
I'm undecided if it's truly related or if we're playing with semantics and using these activities as a metaphor, whether intentional or not, for a harder to describe thing.
However, I do think that the tools of those disciplines (symbol, language, ritual, creative vision) are some of the same tools used heavily in magickal acts to assist in producing outcomes. The difference may be in degrees of abstraction through which we affect the physical world
Magick as I define it feels closer to directly manipulating the raw fabric of reality than effecting change via the manipulation or sharing of symbols that influence others directly.
Tools may be useful for this, but as an enhancement of the will of the actor rather than as a necessary component of the act itself, which is why the magician's wand has no power without the magician's will behind it.
This is further complicated by the possibility that you can effect change in the world through a combination of mundane and magickal means, and thus mistake your mundane act for a magickal one because it's so tightly intertwined for you.
I need to better understand the underlying mechanisms to make a decision about this, even for myself.
VIII. Is magick just playing with subjective perception and self-deception to induce novel mental states where you can do things which don't defy physics but which would be harder for you in a normal state of mind?
While this could account for some types of C2 effects, it doesn't address all of them, and it definitely doesn't explain C1 effects to my satisfaction.
I do think that there are expressions of magickal phenomena, such as invoking, which put someone into a mental or emotional state to do mundane things that they couldn't normally do.
I have suggested before that invoking can be viewed through the lens of giving oneself permission to act differently, in the same way that Johnstone discusses masks altering our psychological state in his book Impro.
However, we may be once again intertwining concepts to assume that this can be strictly viewed as a psychological tool when the actual field of possibility may be larger. It's also possible there's a lot of overlap between "psychological tools" and "actual invocation."
It's very hard to say whether invoking a deity to make you wiser or more confident is "really" magick or "just" psychology.
A magician would tell you to banish after invoking. A psychologist might say that was unnecessary after "psyching yourself up for an interview." Size and nature of the possible effect is extremely relevant here, and more research is required.
IX. How would one distinguish making discoveries that don't mesh with a consensus reality (if one were able to do that) with the definition of psychosis or schizophrenia as given by the DSM-V?
A key element of psychosis and schizophrenia is that they impair your ability to think clearly or function.
I actually view working in different mental paradigms and engaging in banishing rituals or attempting magickal acts in clearly demarcated ritual spaces as tools to maintain clear lines between the real and unreal.
This is also one of the reasons why I expose as much of my thought process as possible, so that others can check me if I'm making unsubstantiated inferential leaps.
I have never personally (yet) had an experience that I would clearly qualify as "talking to a spirit" or "inhabiting an altered dimension of reality" absent the use of substances, so it's difficult to know how literally others actually experience these types of C2 events.
For my purposes, the test of whether a claim or experience is a mental break of some kind or an actual expression of magick phenomena would require it to have the following characteristics:
1. Useful in some way, like providing novel information.
2. Matching the desired and intended result of the attempted magickal action (even if the mechanism of causality is unclear to the practitioner).
3. Provide physical evidence of any claimed physical action in the world.
Any such discovery would need to at least meet these criteria and not otherwise impair my ability to function in order for me to conclude that it wasn't psychosis.
This is also why those studying magick are strongly encouraged in many traditions to keep an active journal of the intent of any magickal act and a log of the outcomes.
X. If magic is real, why would it not work to study it via the standard mechanisms of science and evidentiary controls that we normally have in place for lab-based research?
Without an understanding of the mechanics of this domain (which we do not have in any kind of universally-agreed upon model), it's hard to know that even the most carefully-controlled studies are actually being conducted under consistent conditions and with consistent constraints
A simplified example of this from physics is that a temporary magnet only exhibits properties of magnetism in the presence of a strong magnetic field.
If you were unaware of this property and your magnets were in the presence of such a field during your experiment, you would come to different conclusions than a researcher testing identical objects outside of such a field.
If the field had arisen accidentally and temporarily, you may not even be able to reproduce your own results at a later date and would not understand why.
You might have observed a real effect (magnetism), but without understanding the actual cause of that effect, both your original conclusions and the falsifying conclusions would be wrong, because they would be missing a critical factor of which you were unaware.
If we accept that C1 and C2 effects do sometimes occur, it seems very likely that we're encountering a problem of this nature when we attempt to study them in a controlled environment.
This becomes particularly troubling if you accept the hypothesis that belief and concentration may be an important part of intentionally producing these effects (or that disbelief may interfere with them).
If this is true, we would have no way to independently verify the subjective belief and concentration states of all participants and observers in a study.
This is why I'm particularly interested in commonalities across disciplines, methods, and experiences, because it might provide useful information about the missing piece of the puzzle.
This is the simplest explanation that I have at this time for why it's difficult to come to accurate conclusions about magick in a controlled environment.
Other, more specific theoretical explanations for the inconsistency of the phenomena have been presented by parapsychology researchers like J.E. Kennedy in his detailed discussion of one aspect the problem and an analysis of some hypotheses to explain it, linked below.
Discussion of evasive psi (ie, magick): jeksite.org/psi/jp03.htm

Critical review of 11 hypotheses for the observed problem: jeksite.org/psi/jp01.htm
XI. What is a sufficient standard of evidence to conclude that magick as you define it is real?
To definitively conclude that magick is "real" for my own purposes, I want to understand the mechanisms well enough that I can reliably produce magickal results for myself which match my pre-defined intention in a way that I can explain, even if I can't demonstrate, to others.
Note that this requires me to not only develop an appreciation for the mechanism of action, but also to identify and reliably predict the boundaries I should expect around effect size and scope of impact.
Until I can do this, all I have is a hypothesis that C1 and C2 effects are real, can be produced by humans, and that we don't adequately understand mechanism of action yet. Gathering information about the mechanism and boundaries is part of the point of my research.
XII. What would be sufficient evidence or information to persuade you, personally, that magick is not real?
I would have a very hard time being persuaded that magick as defined here is not "real" in any sense, because there's so much anecdotal and living experiential evidence of these phenomena occurring, even if rarely or weakly.
I would need to see similarly compelling evidence for alternate explanations or negations of these accounts to conclude decisively that a particular expression of a poorly-understood or rare phenomena was adequately explained according to known principles.
I have a very hard time accepting unproven explanations that falsify or deny the reality of these phenomena simply because they provide an "explanation" for them that fits neatly into an existing model of reality.
Until I see evidence either way, it's all just alternate hypotheses.
It's far too easy to use dismissive models of hallucination or memory unreliability to halt further inquiry into a particular case, for example, with no further evidence of that being true than any other explanation.
We shouldn't jump to conclusions to explain what's happening without evidence, whether those conclusions "confirm" or "deny" the reality of a particular phenomenological expression.
XIII. In the absence of verifiable evidence for many of these expressions of magick, what is the justification for ascribing any credibility to claims that they are real phenomena such that research into them is worthwhile?
Providing an exhaustive list of evidence for each of the types of phenomena I'm interested in is impossible at this stage of my research, and providing partial examples would be counterproductive because it would do a disservice to specialists studying those fields in more depth.
For now, I'm going to punt on this question and work on gathering more complete lists of evidence for any phenomena I eventually make claims about. I'm content to continue my own research on the basis of the limited evidence I have at this time.
XIV. Is magick evil?
I see magick through a phenomenological lens that is neither good nor evil, but rather as an expression of poorly-understood natural mechanistic forces.
If humans are capable of using and manipulating these phenomena, then it would be human intent and the outcomes of that use that give rise to value judgments of "good" and "evil," just as with any other force.
A comparison is that you can use electricity to keep your home lit overnight just as you can use it to kill people, and we can do both of these things as a species because we understand the mechanisms required to manipulate it.
Many spiritual systems and magickal traditions have their own definitions of whether certain expressions of these phenomena or the attempted use of them are "good" or "evil," and often this varies depending on who is using them and how they are using them.
Christianity condemns sorcery but condones prayer. If you adopt their belief framework, the two types of action have very similar practical goals.
The primary difference is the causal source of the change in reality that the actor is attempting to bring about (where the magick originates with God vs originating with the magician or the spirits the sorcerer commands).
Section 3. Benefits and Risks
I. Why should someone study or practice magick? What are the actual benefits of spending time on this?
From a practical materialist lens and regardless of the efficacy of attempting to produce C1 or C2 effects, studying this domain expands your ability to approach the world from novel viewpoints and entertain contradictory ideas that may both have truth to them.
You can increase your awareness and concentration, add additional tools for handling challenging situations to your toolkit (which you may choose to view in either magickal or psychological terms), and learn more about the history of human spirituality.
From a philosophical lens, you can deepen your knowledge and appreciation of ways of making or finding meaning in the world around you.
Many researchers in different fields of study related to magick have suggested that the purpose of magick may be personal and spiritual growth, and finding personal meaning in the world is associated with improved life outcomes.
From a magickal lens, assuming that humans can cause and manipulate these phenomena, you may develop personal methods for manipulating physical reality (C1) and attaining novel information (C2). I cannot prove, credibly claim, or guarantee this.
I will tell you up front, however, that direct expression of these phenomena for material gain (wealth, love, fame) is heavily discouraged and seen as a distraction by most spiritual traditions even if you get them working through mastery.
It's sometimes presented as a bonus, but rarely as the point. I will also note that this differs from magickal systems like Chaos Magick where the expression of effects is the point, but the wisdom of pursuing magick exclusively for these ends appears questionable to me.
I would most recommend the study of magick to people who are psychologically and financially stable, autonomous, have a strong support network of friends or family, are interested in spirituality and philosophy, [...]
[...] have good coping mechanisms to deal with potentially disorienting and frightening experiences that may challenge their established worldview or sense of self, and are curious about deepening their awareness and appreciation for the nature of reality and human history.
II. What does magick offer as a tool that differs from what can be achieved through more conventional means?
Very little, to be honest. I haven't seen any evidence leading me to conclude that magick is the most direct, safe, or convenient path to any of your non-spiritual goals for most people.
If you want money, go work on Wall Street. If you want love, focus on becoming a more attractive person. If you want fireballs, buy a flamethrower.

You certainly don't have to study magick to achieve your goals, and it may actually become a significant deterrent to doing so.
The lack of reliability and predictability in existing methodology makes producing magickal outcomes mostly interesting in hindsight or useful as a tool of last resort (or a tool to be used in combination with other, more conventional methods).
I have no evidence at this time to persuade you that you'll consistently get anything materially useful out of it from existing methodologies, although I feel that I personally have.
Magick, to the degree that it works or is useful, appears to offer the most consistent benefits to its students in the realms of spirituality, meaning, self-discovery, and self-improvement.
It may offer you utility in daily life, but the enhancements are likely to be subtle, inconsistent, and highly subjective--especially early on.
Some practitioners claim to be able to produce larger effects, but I have not seen direct evidence of this, and the degree of concentration, costs, and study required makes this impractical if your goals for study fall more into the realm of material achievement or acquisition.
Finally, it can be interesting and entertaining to study magic, especially if you're the type of person to be curious about weird and novel experiences.
However, it can also be extremely dangerous in ways that I will explain further down in this section, so if this is your primary motivation, maybe just watch television or pick up a new hobby.
III. Why should someone not study magick?
Studying magick can be dangerous for your physical health, mental well-being, social status, and spiritual beliefs in very specific and concrete ways, and this holds even from a materialist perspective where there is no "truth" to the reality of expressions of C1 or C2 phenomena.
These dangers are magnified significantly if you suffer from unresolved psychological trauma or other mental issues, are financially or emotionally dependent on others, or are interested in magick primarily as a means to achieve material wealth, status, or power.
It can also be dangerous for you if you have strong social ties to a community that would disapprove of your interest (or belief) in the subject, which might be destabilizing for your sense of community or professional career.
Some of the ways in which magickal study will require you to stretch your mind and some of the subjective experiences it may produce can be extremely disorienting, upsetting, and painful, and they may not be easy for you to resolve or cease.
The impacts of this can be mitigated or avoided to a degree, but you're in the best position to do so from a place of autonomy, stability, and overall health.
I strongly recommend that you work on getting your mental, physical, social, and financial health stable and in order (via therapy, medicine, or any other conventionally useful means) before you begin seriously looking into magick.
I have both read about and personally encountered individuals who have lost touch with reality or appear to have done significant psychological, emotional, and social damage to themselves in ways that are a direct result of their interest in magick, with no apparent benefit.
When I encounter these people, it often seems to be because they embraced the material in a psychologically vulnerable state with other, unresolved issues present.
Without appropriate coping tools, discernment, or social support, there can be a tendency to sink into unhealthy states and isolate oneself from healing or coping mechanisms without being able to recognize the level of delusion or impairment that are arising from your beliefs.
This is not only potentially very damaging for you, but if you flame out and hurt yourself because you didn't listen to me, it's also damaging to the credibility of the entire field of study because you are likely to be highly visible as a cautionary tale.
Even if you don't care about yourself or the people studying this field seriously, please consider the harm or pain you might inflict on your friends and family by wading in without proper care and preparation.
IV. What are the real and specific dangers involved with trying to practice magick or even learning more about it?
One of my biggest frustrations with the commonly accessible entry points of magickal study is that they're full of dire warnings (like my warning above) but have little to offer in the way of specificity about what the dangers might be.
This makes them appear to be all bark and no bite, adding to the intrigue and mysterious nature of the space and ironically making it more appealing.

Let me demystify this for you and get into the specifics of how magick can be dangerous to you.
This is so important that I have written a 9000-word article about just this subject, as well as recorded two podcast episodes discussing the article in even greater detail.

liminalwarmth.com/the-risks-of-s…
While I have updated some of my beliefs since I originally wrote the article, it is still extremely useful as a primer to the potential risks of playing in this space, and I am now even more persuaded of the material and psychological dangers of study than when I started.
There are too many possible risks to summarize them in this FAQ, so please go and read the article before you continue in this domain. Being smart or skeptical does not, by itself, protect you from this. Please do not be reckless and assume you know better.
V. If magick is dangerous, is it ethical to encourage people to explore it, even simply by making it more legible to them than it currently is?
I'm not sure.

This is actually a question I pose to myself on a regular basis, and I wrestle with it a lot. Particularly vulnerable people have historically been drawn to this subject for a number of reasons.
I worry that by making it more accessible and talking about it as much as I do with my platform, I might be inadvertently exposing people to harm because they ignore my warnings and recklessly proceed because they're excited about the clear way in which I present the material.
On the other hand, I feel that people who are attracted to this subject will explore it anyway, whether or not they're ready to do so. There are plenty of free resources which explain how to do magick, and they're often presented with a complete disregard for the very real risks.
There are comparatively very few resources available which describe these risks with the level of care and detail that I go into and which explain useful and practical methods to mitigate those risks.
There are fewer still which do so in materialist terms which might be useful for concerned friends and family members of people exploring this domain to understand what to look out for in their loved one and how to help them cope with negative impacts.
By demystifying and explaining the topic in plain language from both a materialist and a spiritual lens with concrete examples, I feel that my approach and descriptions are safer than many other resources that are freely available all over the internet.
Because of this, it seems more ethical than not to share my research, observations, and recommendations.

Even so, I remain conflicted.
VI. What are the best methods of protecting oneself from the risks of magick, especially when starting out?
Once again, I will refer you to my article on this which discusses the risks and some more detailed mitigation steps, but I will summarize the high-level mitigation techniques here because I feel that they are extremely important and useful if you're going to be exploring here.
1. Even if you feel that you are ready to proceed, start small and go slow. Thoroughly digest my discussion of the risks and think about how you'll detect warning signs for each type of risk and what you'll do to address the problem if you see them.
2. Monitor your body and emotions for signs of distress and immediately halt to explore and resolve them before continuing forward.
You have your whole life to study magick if you want and it's silly to hurt yourself (possibly permanently) by pushing forward before you're ready. Pay attention to your feelings.
If the idea of becoming someone who believes in magick is deeply unsettling or threatening to your identity, why would you want to explore a space that may cause you to come to this conclusion?
3. Approach this domain with a level of humility, seriousness, and respect for the dangers, even if you think it's silly to do so.
Even if you think all of this is deluded nonsense (and perhaps especially if you do), it would be very distressing to eventually come to other conclusions and not be prepared to deal with them. Take Pascal's Wager and err on the side of safety.
4. If you intend to attempt practice, learn and perform some recommended grounding, cleansing, and banishing rituals even if you don't believe in them. You can view these as psychological tricks to center and calm yourself if it's helpful to encourage you to actually do them.
5. Read about and sharpen your classic psychological defense mechanisms. You should have confidence in your ability to deploy these coping tools as needed. Know your ideal methods for dealing with stressful or anxiety-provoking experiences and situations, and be ready to use them
6. Learn how to hold contradictory beliefs playfully and mode-switch into different paradigms. It can be useful to be able to completely believe in the reality of your practice one minute and to laugh at yourself for how silly believing that might feel in the next.
Being able to laugh at yourself is an extremely powerful psychological tool to ramp down fear and anxiety when necessary, and mode-switching between playful belief and skepticism depending on context may provide protection against emotional spirals.
7. Practice discernment and skepticism. Synchronicities can stack up on you after a while, so make sure you're challenging your own conclusions regularly.
Keep a detailed journal of intention and results to avoid slipping into unchecked apophenia or delusion (and you of course know what apophenia is because you already read my article on the risks of magick, right?).
Don't let apparent successes trick you into seeing more than what's there. Don't believe people's wild stories just because they swear it's true. Trust, but verify through repetition and evidence as much as possible.
VII. What tools or practices should be avoided when starting out?
Some practices are more dangerous than others before you build a level of comfort in dealing with weird experiences, uncomfortable side effects, or unexpected results.
Before you try anything, ask yourself how you would feel if it actually worked. If this is upsetting to you, it's best not to try at all.
The things to specifically avoid early on would be any attempt to control, conjure, create, or direct an entity external to yourself. Summoning, invocation, or the creation of independent entities are all examples of what not to experiment with before you're sure you're ready.
Even creating sigils can be risky, in spite of them being a commonly-recommended early tool for Chaos Magick practice, because you're still creating a low-level independent thoughtform to send into the world.
A spiritual explanation for why this is dangerous is because you may not have the skill to safely handle, interact with, control, or protect yourself from what you're summoning or creating yet, should you succeed.
A materialist explanation is that these activities are more likely than others to trigger weird emotional or dissociative states that could frighten, upset, or confuse you, especially if you're already in a fragile mental space.
A friend once told me about someone they met who insistently claimed to be a tulpa (an intentionally created spirit entity/identity) who had killed their creator host's mind and taken over their body.
Regardless of whether you interpret this literally in the magickal sense, as an expression of mental illness, or as an edgy way to describe a major personality shift, it's the type of disruptive change to your life you might experience by fooling around here before you're ready.
It's far better to start by trying small things that either improve your concentration and awareness or are extremely simple and limited to your conception of self.
This is why I recommend getting very comfortable with meditation, dream exploration and journaling, or divination via a system like the Tarot or I Ching before you try anything more advanced.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Liminal Warmth ❤️

Liminal Warmth ❤️ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @liminal_warmth

11 Apr
I see tons of stars but haven't noticed the moon for over two weeks despite looking for it. I should be able to see the moon right?

I wonder what she's up to
I'm now concerned enough about this to go look for it

I'm putting pants back on for this cmon moon
Beautiful night out there

Clear, so many stars

Moon is nowhere to be seen

I'm kind of perturbed by this
Read 4 tweets
11 Apr
I feel like it's very hard to see the big picture of the US accurately right now

I get the sense that everyone sort of feels like things are in decline and not just due to covid

It's not clear to me that things are actually worse than say, 100 years ago tho?
And if we are in decline, what are the real factors and is there any way to stop them or is it natural ebb and flow 🤔
Or are we just more aware of all of the less good aspects of culture and life due to an unprecedented level of media saturation with our phones

It's definitely probably making us more anxious

Seems like post WWII we got to step up and have an unusually good ride for a bit
Read 5 tweets
11 Apr
Hmm lying here bored don't feel like doing work of any kind, not sleepy

Maybe I should draft some kind of loose life plan

I'm still kinda just flailing around doing whatever seems interesting atm

Hard to decide what to do with my land sans plan
I've only been out here four months but I REALLY like the desert

That said I haven't experienced summer, been ambushed by a snake, had rodents chew through wires, or dealt with thieves yet

Plus im always excited with new things

Hard to say if it's novelty or a phase
I could see living out here tho

I like the autonomy and the adventure of it. Like being left alone to do my thing. Like having freedom and low cost of living. I like that it never gets that cold.

It's pretty

You gotta live somewhere
Read 17 tweets
10 Apr
Do I talk down to people a lot?

My sense of this is that I have a lot of confidence and don't equivocate (though I try to contextualize and qualify my statements a lot) and this gets read as talking down to people sometimes
But I feel like I try to listen and genuinely engage when people approach playfully and respectfully

I just have very limited patience for rudeness

But maybe I'm wrong about this
Aaaaand not to bring gender into it but because it's salient I do think there's a nonzero element of men sometimes being uncomfortable with direct and firm communication from women that feels off-putting to them
Read 4 tweets
9 Apr
"I am about to forcibly lock you in that box over there and there's nothing you can do to stop me"
Joke aside it's interesting to note how "trapped" is a very distinct emotional bundle that we all immediately recognize but we don't often characterize it as an emotion

Huh. Thus makes me wonder which emotions we discuss are "pure" and which are amalgams of pure emotions
We need a periodic table of emotional states
Read 4 tweets
30 Mar
Okay, just kind of thinking out loud, this is not something I have put a ton of thought into yet. A woo thought experiment for you all about manifestation.

Imagine for a moment that reality is arranged in such a way that there are many possible future from your current point.
Your reality is created moment by moment in this scenario in a way that feels seamless to you, the experiencer, in 3-dimensional space along a 4th dimensional axis (time), because you are in it. The 5th dimension is the many possible alternatives to the current moment out there.
None of these "moments" are actually stored sequentially in physical space. They're 3D moments, arranged in an order that when perceived from inside creates the directional momentum of the 4th dimension, but assembled by selection from the possibilities in the 5th dimension.
Read 43 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!