Hi Michael
I was brought up Catholic and still occasionally get dragged to church by my wife so thats just about as much ritual as I can take anymore.
As to magic, I had a friend who was very involved so I read up on a few of the big names and they all seemed to get consumed by it in a sad way
and it always seemed to end in tears.Saying that it seems that the intention is paramount, but then thats the same with anything really.
And this is the sad fact of it. The term 'ritualistic' is often applied to what is thought to be the enactment of repeated and empty performances. Yet it can and should be powerful and beautiful. Like so many things it can be spoiled and debased by insincerity and in authenticity.
If you are not engaged and the performance is not gripping there is no point in being there. Dragging another to something you value, and which they merely suffer, is never a good idea.
Magic on the public stage is never good idea either. By that I mean there really should not be 'big names' in magic. Crowley is especially misrepresented by foes and friends - and he ended badly if you take the merely overt rendition of his life - and there is no reason why you would would not. Magic is pretty much like sex and poetry - to be performed by consenting adults in private - and with a good motive.
In a sense you are right, in saying the intention is paramount. But what are the presumptions, the knowledge, that forms that intent? At a deeper level we have to examine the grounds upon which we form an intent., For example a magical act might be performed to aid a friend in strife, because they are a friend and in trouble. But on a deeper level perhaps the better thing might be to do nothing. How do we know? How do we judge?
There is the Wiccan Rede which say "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will". But exactly how do we know whether an act we intend to perform harms none? There are Buddhists whose commitment to doing no harm means they will not step on an ant. In my days of being involved in Wicca (which I continue to esteem highly) I found few people actually able to think through what constituted harm.
Its actually a deep, profound idea - to do no harm. The interesting thing, I found, was that there are no discussions about the Rede, even while it was being promoted. The idea promoted was that we had to come to our understanding of what the Rede meant. Well, of course we did, but where was the guidance to think through the very real complexity of the idea.
The Wiccan Rede is, I think, borrowed from Mill's essay On Liberty. Despite the adornment, there is nothing magical about it.
So I agree. Intent matters, but how to do we know our intent is well formed?
I have to say I do not have any use for old school magic these days. My motive to intervene is tempered by what I hope is a deeper sense of necessity. And when I am moved to intervene I seem to have more subtle ways - still 'magical' in some ways. I think the formulation of intent and the expression of will is different and deeper as we mature.
I'd say that magic is old tech for most of us. I really can't speak for others - to praise or criticise. Some evidently still find value in it. Its not my path, that is for sure.
As I think on this, it strikes me that a better question from Alex might have been "Is magic of value to us now'? In which case my answer would have been 'Yes', because if we understand how it works we understand something crucial about the nature of our reality - something proper shamans and mystics already know. Does this mean it is the proper subject of science? Yes.
Does it means we should be worried? Yes. Any human undertaking that is not governed by a proper code of conduct should concern us.
I may make myself immensely unpopular in saying that questions about whether magic is old tech or not have no real meaning until we address the more fundamental question about the nature of human morality.,What does it mean to be a 'good' person. Pre-Enlightenment the answer to this question was presumed to be answered - but it wasn't. Post-Enlightment we still thought we knew, but we could not agree. So we didn't know at all.
I agree that "intention is paramount". But we have a quagmire of sentiment, bluster, nonsense and bullshit to wade through. We no longer know what good is. For example I look at POTUS Trump and see a man manifestly unfit to hold that high office, and yet a very substantial portion of the US population (not a majority, but that is not the issue) disagrees with me. How and why? How are our estimates of fitness so divergent? Why are they so?
I have said it before on this forum that I am an Australian with no investment in US politics. For me it is an utterly compelling drama - my Game of Thrones really. I am engaged, but not invested. Domestic politics depress the crap out of me, so the only way I can indulge my love of politics without entangled angst is go abroad. UK politics is a train wreck with no redeeming qualities. Once again the US delivers the biggest and most spectacular.
So if you can't answer the Trump dilemma you can't answer the Wiccan Rede's problem of interpretation - and that means you can't work through the intention issue and come up with a universal answer.
Of course there will be those who will insist that there is no problem here and they have the answer. Really? Let's hear it, read it.