Magick in Theory and Practice (Section 1)

conditions accompany the act, I can never be sure that they hâve always been, or ever will again be, identical. (In fact, it is certain that an event can never occur twice in precisely the same circum- stances.) 1 “Further, my ‘laws’ must always take nearly ail the more important éléments of knowledge for granted. I cannot say — finally — how an electric current is generated. I cannot be sure that some totally unsuspected force is not at work in some entirely arbitrary way. For example, it was formerly supposed that Hydrogen and Chlorine would unité when an electric spark was passed through the mixture ; now we “knowJ that the presence of a minute quantity of aqueous vapour (or some tertium quid) is essential to the reaction. We formulated before the days of Ross the ‘laws’ of malarial fever, without reference to the mosquitoj we might discover one day that the germ is only active when certain events are transpiring in some nebula2, or when so apparently inert a substance as Argon is présent in the air in certain proportions. “We may therefore admit quite cheerfully that Magick is as mysterious as mathematics, as empirical as poetry, as uncertain as golf, and as dépendent on the personal équation as Love. “That is no reason why we should not study, practice and enjoy it • for it is a Science in exactly the same sense as biology; it is no less an Art than Sculpture 5 and it is a Sport as much as Moun- taineering. “Indeed, there seems to be no undue presumption in urging that no Science possesses equal possibilities of deep and important Knowledge ; 3 that no Art offers such opportunités to the ambi- 1. If it did so, how could we call it duplex? 2. The history of the Earth is included in the period of some such relation; so that we cannot possibly be sure that we may deny: Malarial fever is a function of the présent precession of the Equinoxes”. 3. Magick is less liable to lead to error than any other Science, because its terms are interchangeable, by définition, so that it is based on relativity from the start. We run no risk of asserting absolute propo¬ sitions. Furthermore we make our measurements in terms of the object measured, thus avoiding the absurdity of defining metaphysical ideas by mutable standards, (Cf. Eddington “Space, Time, and Gravitation . — 77