Also interesting for me in that article is an affirmation of that which he seemed to deny in his interview with Alex: that magic can be studied scientifically (this might be of interest to Michael P given his response to that part of my post):
G'day Laird! I am not even sure I understand Louv in the quotes you gave above. Magic, by its very nature has been approached 'scientifically' - at least by the serious devotees to it. By that I mean it is engaged with as a serious discipline of inquiry using experimental and empirical methods. But are we talking scientist as magus or scientist as studier of magicians and magic?
There are, I think, different levels of talking about magic. Some discussion is fit for public exposure and other discussions are not. The suggestion that "All you need is a willingness to try something weird
within the realm of your own mind, and see what happens—just like any good scientist would." is not, I think, a sensible thing to put an innocent reader. That can get you in to a whole mess of trouble. It is a reckless suggestion that would, mercifully, mostly yield no results.
Likewise saying "(and if you're a magician, you should maintain freedom of interpretation at all costs)" supposes that a person who fancies themselves as a magician possesses a "freedom of interpretation" that is actual rather than imagined. Louv takes me back to my introduction to magic - and to the discovery of incomprehensible stuff that seemed to make sense, but did not. Here Louv may think he understands what he wrote, but then let him make sense of it others who are asking him questions, especially insightful and penetrating ones. Freedom of interpretation is more claimed than actual. Freedom from what? From belief? Precisely when do you believe you are free from belief?
If we believe what is passed down to us mystics, shamans and magicians of yore underwent powerful preparatory and initiation processes that essentially ratted out the psychological crap inhabiting their minds and emotions (a bit like SEAL training I guess). When you do that you can maybe make declarations about 'freedom of interpretation'. In the absence of formal schools of training most of us have to make do with messy life experiences that push us to the edge of sanity. We must travel our own dark nights of the soul. If we are lucky, we avoid crippling PTS and gain a few insights before we die.
Louv reminds me of people I knew long ago - into magic and mad, but not in a good way. After hearing how he handled Guy (sorry - Alex) I think it is ludicrous that he is teaching anybody anything.
However, in a way Louv has a point. The post modern liberty to be free from privileged discourses does give us a liberty to think and imagine in ways not bound to dominant discourses. If magic works at all it should work based on personal attributes and not recitations of formulae and performance of ritual acts. It does seem true that some people have a knack - some innate attribute that makes magic easier for them. We use the term 'ritualistic' to sometimes mean the performance of acts that are intended to generate effect, but with none of the 'inner workings' (belief, commitment, engagement etc).
Some insist all magic involves spirits. If that is so, then magic is not only done with aid, but with permission. And success in magic requires attitude and qualities of character. Psychological maturity would seem to be desirable, as would a certain capacity for moral discernment. The first step, it would seem, if you want the power that being adept in magic might bring, would be to prepare your character. That doesn't mean holding a bunch of clever dick ideas in your mind. Of course you can be an asshole, attract spirits of questionable character and make stuff happen. That's the power path. The wisdom path is an alternative.
I don't think magic is a fit topic for science as we understand the term science. We have all heard of the 'observer effect' in quantum science. But we never put a lot of effort into thinking about the observer, beyond presuming they are some dude in a lab coat. The wisdom path seeks to refine the character and the attributes of the observer in the world. When they cease to be 'depraved' and 'attached' the quality of their 'effect' is raised. In essence what we call magic is a development from this and on a spectrum from weak to strong and from shitty to benign. A scientist might benefit from striving to be a magician, but not studying it (other than to realise that it is real).
Louv has this idea of "a magical interpretation" by which you interpret your apparently magical efforts. That can be whatever you want it to mean, I think. There is a difference between having a magical outlook on life and looking at the consequence of your actions in a magical way. Crowley's maxim of 'Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the Law' (Love is the law, love under will) is enticing, as is the Wiccan ideal of 'If it harm none, do what you will.' But if taken up by psychologically and intellectually immature these become licenses for careless enactment of personal intent. A lot of this goes back to John Stuart Mill's essay 'On Liberty' (freely available on line as a pdf). It presumes attributes of self-awareness and self-discipline that do not usually exist.
20th and 21st century magic is still indebted to Mill, as is, I believe, Louv. The words are enticing and exciting, but their meaning is shallow. The more I encounter contemporary attitudes to magic the more I want to get rid of it as an idea.