Marketing/Magic[k]

[wolven7]

Quote found via moonandserpent:

"It was Occult study that first led me to major in Marketing. The way I see it, it's just magick by another name... I think that Marketing is simply the legitimate face of occult study - the last socially acceptable way to understand magic theory. If more occultists got involved in it, I think there would be a lot of growth in the way we interpret, present, and understand ideas." --Jedediah Walls, Chicago AdBusters

I would also add areas of Politics to that, actually.

Comments

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I completely disagree with this often parroted meme.

Magicians are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary and they are drawing from sources that make sense and in this you'll see some commonalities with things like marketing, but it's a leap and I'm not sure a positive one to say marketing is the same as magic.

I think the real motivation is this

"I think that Marketing is simply the legitimate face of occult study"

I'm not really interested in appearing legitimate to straight society. I don't care if people think I'm nuts. If you want legitimate call it an art form and link yourself into the lineage of literary giants who also discuss the writing process as many magicians discuss magic.

I'm not morally opposed to marketing, but I am morally opposed to reducing an art form to a gross justification of materialism.

In some sense I suppose it depends on how you define magic, and if it's simply any deliberate act that gets you what you want, I personally find that definition too general to be of any use practically or academicly.

I've read old marketing texts where they give very occulty advice, but I'm more inclined to say that yes magic can help you with nearly anything including marketing, but that doesn't mean that everything you apply your magic too is on its own inherently magic.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

If we look at magic as altering perception so that we alter the world, via either direct Action-On-Perception relation, or by changing the actual Meaning-Conception relationship between the things, then things like Philosophy of Language and Marketing become extremely important avenues of magical theory. Their entire goal is to change the way you interact with the world, to change what concepts actually mean to you, and how you act in the world, because of them.

Changing perception, changing the world. Isn't that a form of magic?

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"Changing perception, changing the world. Isn't that a form of magic?"

Not necessarily.

For example, if you thought the earth was flat and I provided evidence that it was not, and as a result it changed your perception of earth is that magic, or is it simply processing new information and acting on it accordingly?

Ben Mack who is the hero of a lot of peers that are fetishizing the marketing=magick meme(especially viral marketing)consistently evokes Bucky Fuller and the idea of bringing drinkable water to everyone on the planet in an arguement that very much resembles the step 1 steal underwear step 2 ? step 3 profit model of thinking.

I'll note that while he touts his ability to sell yo-yo's and websites, I've yet to see him make any real headway in the ending famine department. Or even to adress it anyway outside of convincing people marketing is a humanitarian and magical thing and if you buy X it will tell you how to do that.

Marketing and politics is about reframing context not about a literal change in context. It's a very very useful skill to have,I don't think it gets to be magic though.

The control of meaning and perception is only one part of the magical equation. Even if it's the key that can unlock a door, it on its own doesn't open the door or walk you through it. I think it can be worth studying these things, I think they can make you a more effective magician (they can also make you a non magician imo) but on their own I'm not convinced they are magic.

My litmus test is generally, can your technique provide action at a distance, if it can't it's not magic imo. It might be mysticism (which is a great bulk of so called high magic traditionally) but for me magic is a very specific thing and having devoted the bulk of my life to it I tend to take it and the attempts to redefine it seriously.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

ps great discussion, thank you =)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No problem, at all. Glad to have it. :)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Now, I think that we have to define what we mean by "action." Action like Me Picking up something, but in another room, or action like Me Making You Do something? Because then we have new things to define...

And how are you meaning "non magician"? Someone who happens to not do magic, or someone inherently non-magical?

[moonandserpent.livejournal.com]

While I'm a bit more lose on my magic definition than you seem to be, I do have to say that on the whole I disagree with that quote. (Actually it appears we may have slightly different definitions of "action at a distance".)

Me? I think that marketing can be an extension of magic, sure. I think that the toolset that comes along with magical work is very applicable to marketing.

But, "the legitimate face of occult study"? Certainly not. Any more than painting, writing, design or engineering are "the legitimate face of occult study"

Regarding Ben Mack, I've never understood the appeal. Admittedly, I've not read Poker Without Cards but you hit the nail on the head on my gripes with him and how he's been accepted as a go-to guy in some magical circles.

*shrug*

I think a lot of it has to do with "occulture"'s search for credibility and outside validation. I used to wrestle with this urge a lot, and to be frank, I still do. Somewhere on my LJ there is a 200-post argument about magic as an actual discipline with a former friend who studied historical magic as an extension of natural science and loathed modern magicians or pagans. In the end, I reverted to a strongly magic = nlp/marketing/self help stance that ended the argument, but really didn't reflect what I was trying to defend. But I see a lot of people do similar things in their attempts to "sell magic".

When writing over at Grinding (http://grinding.be/2008/04/30/looking-at-tech-sideways/) about Magic/k I still have problems navigating the divide between objective distance and borderline occult apologisim. It's a damn tempting line of argument to follow... infusing your practice with perceived commercial/mainstream/academic value in order to make it more easily consumed or appreciated by others.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"Regarding Ben Mack, I've never understood the appeal. Admittedly, I've not read Poker Without Cards but you hit the nail on the head on my gripes with him and how he's been accepted as a go-to guy in some magical circles. "

I hung out with him at esozone this year and when he's just being a dude he was fun to be around, but the minute he started being Ben Mack I was just so put off by it. Actually that was kind of a theme at esozone, I thought Antero ali was dbag too when he was onstage but when he was being casual and not being Antero Ali speaker on magical things he was pretty awesome.

I'm sidetracking though....

"I think a lot of it has to do with "occulture"'s search for credibility and outside validation. I used to wrestle with this urge a lot, and to be frank, I still do. Somewhere on my LJ there is a 200-post argument about magic as an actual discipline with a former friend who studied historical magic as an extension of natural science and loathed modern magicians or pagans. In the end, I reverted to a strongly magic = nlp/marketing/self help stance that ended the argument, but really didn't reflect what I was trying to defend. But I see a lot of people do similar things in their attempts to "sell magic".

Yeah I've had my bouts of being overly conscerned with legitimizing magic in some way. I think it can be valuable for a wide variety of reasons..though imo none of those reasons is anything to do with making it legitimate; but more about establishing a topology of your own beliefs. Partially it's a drive of knowing how beneficial its been in my life...but these days I'm increasingly satisfied to tell people if you won't test the thesis yourself I see no reason to defend it to you, there's volumes upon volumes already written that do just that.

" It's a damn tempting line of argument to follow... infusing your practice with perceived commercial/mainstream/academic value in order to make it more easily consumed or appreciated by others."

This is part of why I like calling it an art form it lowers the defenses and if you're prepared to do it, allows you to show them first hand how effacious it can be.

"While I'm a bit more lose on my magic definition than you seem to be"

I'm probably coming across as more tightly defined than I really am as a sort of attempted antidote to a definition so loose the word loses practical meaning.