Magick Christianity

Behind most Western magick (the real stuff, not prestidigitation) is a single metaphysic/cosmogony/cosmology, with many versions. It antedates Christianity but has developed in close proximity to it, so that certain ideas seem to be common to both (which has allowed some magicians to escape the fires and caused some Christians to be fed to them).  One version of this metaphysics underlies much of the mystical quest or the Orthodox pursuit of divinization.  Looking at the general pattern of this metaphysic may shed some light on a number of questions that tend to arise.  And maybe assuage my worries about contemplative Christianity.

The basic story is this: There is the One, complete in itself.  And yet it gives rise to the Second, which is not different from the One, but distinct nonetheless.  And these two give rise to the Third, also not different yet distinct.  From here the various versions diverge.  Most present an array of beings, distinct and different from the top three and one another, and subservient to the top three.  At some point, the world is made, whether by one of these subservient beings-- and so evil -- or by the One (or the Second or the Third) -- and so good.  This world is a very Ptolemaic one: geocentric, with seven plus spheres around the earth, governed by one (or more) of those subservient beings, and blocking a view of the Three.  Now, none of this (or only the last bit) is a temporal succession; it is merely a logical one, explaining a hierarchy.

But the next bit sets time in motion, if the whirling spheres did not already. The Second or the Third is fragmented and a bit enters each thing in the world (I particularly like the story of the Third seeing his -- or whatever -- reflection in world, falling in love with the being it -- or whatever -- thinks it sees there, and diving to reach it, being sliced and diced on the way down by the whirling sphere and the pieces going into everything in the hope of finding the beloved).  The other one also permeates the whole world but remains intact, underlying, supporting, and recording all that happens.

However the story goes, the result is the same.  There is the One, still self-sufficient, perfect. There is the world, especially Earth, immediately borne by a being that is not different from that One, and in each of us there is a piece of a being not different from the One. And between, a number of other beings who control various aspects of the world under general directions from on high.

Magical conclusions: 1. We can return to the One by getting our bit of the Second or the Third back whence it came, in its unfragmented origin, not different from the One. 2.  Since this fragment is not different from the substrate of the universe, we can understand, predict, recall and, to some extent, control what happens.  3.Since this fragment is part of the top layer, it has power over the subservient beings that perform the ordinary events in the world, we can learn to control them and bring about desired events.

However different in theory, in practice these three conclusions intertwined and reenforced one another.  One emphasizing the first conclusion (a mystic, say) would probably have to pass through all the spheres, which meant dealing with the subservient beings who controlled them.  And that meant knowing their names (Baphomet, say -- not a real name) and the secret rituals which were needed to convince the power that you were worthy to proceed (the pinkie grip handshake, say -- a real one).  So they (most of them, anyhow) need to learn the lore that followed from the third conclusion, the original mysteries somewhat updated.  Those who focused on the second conclusion (alchemists, say) needed this, too, for often only spirits knew where to find the pure mercury, etc. that the work required.  They also knew that to complete the work it might be necessary to purify the worker as well as the material and that process took one a long way toward the Origin. The followers of the third conclusion knew that some names were only to be uttered (if at all) by those well advanced along one of the routes to the origin and knew the basics of protecting themselves when calling on spirits or graving amulets or scrying.

So, can we accept this general view -- greatly expanded, of course, (though you would scarcely believe it if you read most contemporary Christian writing) to embrace a billion galaxies of a billion stars apiece, and Lord only knows (part of the point actually) how many planets and sentient beings and how much and what kinds of stuff in between  -- without also accepting the rest of the magick kit?  Do we indeed, as Christians (and other "advanced" theologians of whatever sort) want to do without the magick kit?  Given an adequately fuzzy sense of quantum mechanics, doesn't science force us to a world like this (or at least cohere with one)?  Certainly, action at a distance is nicely accounted for by the underlying substrate that keeps track of everything and is available to all points.  And then miracles are just minor tinkerings with the collapsing of probability waves, so as to produce macroscopic effects.  And so on: science and religion together at last.

And even without science, this view still does the work for miracles in a rational way.  But does it still leave open the possibility of magick: of greedy puddlers making gold in the back room, of angry witches blighting our crops (or our hard drives), of sinners meeting God?

I just don't know.  So, when I hear this worldview, however attenuated, I tend to back away in fear.  But doing so seems to cut me off from divinization or union or other such mystic goals.