by nagasiva yronwode

Arthur C. Clarke's famous Third Law — "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" — circulated widely in skeptical and science-fiction communities as an implicit dismissal of occultism. But the occultist nagasiva yronwode, writing in alt.magick.chaos in August 2003, finds Clarke's framing both useful and insufficient. The law describes a criterion of ignorance, not a definition of magic — and it collapses when applied by practitioners to their own work.

This post is drawn from a threaded discussion on the nature and definition of magic. Nagasiva's contributions are extracted here as a coherent philosophical statement. His core claim: magic is "intentional change effected through symbolic means." Without the symbolic element, what looks like magic is either psychicism, medicine, or engineering. Clarke's Third Law describes the outsider's experience of mystification; nagasiva's definition describes the practitioner's method.

Nagasiva yronwode (also known as tyaginator, nocTifer, haramullah, and blackman99) was among the most prolific and philosophically rigorous contributors to Usenet occult discourse in the 1990s and early 2000s. He operated from a syncretic, non-dogmatic position and engaged critically with both sceptics and fellow practitioners.

Sci-fi/fantasy and occult worlds often interact and collide. ACClarke set a standard for enthusiasts of science and its fiction for assessing wonderment and mystification, but is inexpect in distinguishing intent or actual influence. As a skeptical approach to occultism, Clarke's dictum:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

doesn't literally include a definition of magic per se, though it is often taken to include a dubious assessment as to the reality of magic on the whole (not much, since magic is fiction, fabrication, and misunderstandings).

One might invert this typical bias and admit not only is any sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic, it is also indistinguishable from psychicism, or from any other activity we don't seek to define.

Defining magic as involving symbolism or formulae serves to immediately allow such a distinguishing to take place if there is no symbolism which is part of the technology. Broadly, magic is technology, whether or not we consider it to be "advanced" or "primitive" or something else.

On the question of modern dictionary definitions versus older ones shaped by Christian influence — the better English dictionaries remain reflective of anti-magic bias.

My definition of magic(k): intentional change effected through symbolic means. The context of its performance determines the difficulty of its practice. Internally, magic is usually described as mysticism or medicine. Often these are combined: e.g. the "Universal Medicine" which some magicians are supposed to be able to create and guard.

On the claim that magic is "basically a psychological state of mind" — there are people who talk about "magical thinking," and they're often talking about a sequence of mind-states or thoughts that rely on irrational or semi-rational leaps of logic. Alternatively, you may be describing a socially-mediated activity which includes interactive influences to consciousness that may or may not include symbolism.

Still more likely, you're describing the limitations to which you think magic is typically encountering success — such as in the realm of the subject — conservative ground to which those in Theosophical and Hermetic circles will sometimes retreat, describing magic as intentional change in consciousness and craftily ignoring any engineering or psychic issues.

Thought and series of mind-states are not, themselves, magic. These are possibly influenced by magic, such as fetishes, and rituals and charms, but they are not usually themselves magic unless they intend a change and are symbolically-implemented. Without implements it becomes a kind of psychicism.

If you're talking about Crowleyan Magick, then it might qualify, because its definitions are weak and inclusive. There are a bunch of definitions, for example, and just the qualifier of "intentionality" might be the criteria. All you'd have to do is be directing your thoughts, by this kind of assessment, and you're doing magic. It is hyper-simplistic. Sweeping your porch is magic, etc.

The mechanism of that kind of thinking doesn't include the symbolic — hence it is not magic by my definition.

On the "ignorance-criteria" approach — once something is fully understood it is no longer magic — this is the Arthur C. Clarke kind of magic. It is convincing to those whose focus is achievement without regard for its procedural character or method.

"Magick being that replicable act that works consistently even though we don't know how or why, once the how and why are understood it ceases to be magick and becomes whatever it is in the first place."

Engineering, presumably, leveraged force in sum.

"Our word magick only denoting that aspect of an act that we, by our use of the term, admit our ignorance of."

Lots of words get used in the same way: "hoodoo," "voodoo," "juju," "mumbo-jumbo," etc. The implication is usually as an outsider, just like the term "magic" initially was used to identify the activities of the Persian religious as somehow dark, mysterious, and not trustworthy (as compared to "our religion" — Greek).

If it doesn't matter whether it's intentional, then we might apply "magic" to that which is an error, mistake, or folly. It is something about which we plainly have some ignorance, else we would avoid the inaccuracy or fumble and recoup.

Clarke's category of magic is as good as the old Greeks, but it doesn't suffice for those applying it to ourselves. Like Satanism, the projections may have been entertaining, or horrific, but they tend toward different activities in those applying it themselves — in which case knowledge does indeed begin to factor into the practice, sometimes as a primary aim, element, or criteria of its implementation (as with formulae).

Colophon

Written by nagasiva yronwode (yronwode.com@nagasiva), posted to alt.magick.chaos and crossposted to alt.magick.tyagi, alt.magick, alt.skeptic, and alt.pagan.magick on 7 August 2003. Reconstructed from a threaded discussion; nagasiva's contributions are extracted and arranged here as a standalone essay. The argument is his own — the arrangement is editorial.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: 2iuYa.9270$[email protected].

🌲