§0 Sammanfattning

En besvärjelse är en grammatik som glömt att den är en.

This post reads the Western magical tradition through its own vocabulary and its own modern self-interpretation, and finds a consistent structure: magic is described as an operation on symbolic maps held by minds, not on matter [D]. Sigils compress an intention into a glyph whose key is deliberately forgotten; grimoires such as the Ars Goetia are indexed directories of functions and seals; egregores are symbols that glue many minds into one section; curses act through the target's knowledge and belief [D]. Each has a documented, non-magical pathway: implementation intentions, the reconstruction of shared representations, performative speech, the nocebo effect [E]. Two traditions frame the post: Crowley's Thelema, which affirms each individual will inside the cosmos, and the Swedish Misanthropic Luciferian Order (MLO), whose anti-cosmic doctrine seeks the undoing of the cosmos itself [E]. The post does not claim that ritual acts cause physical effects outside psychological and social pathways; no controlled evidence supports that [S].

Epistemic ledger. Every substantive claim carries one tag:

Tag Meaning
[E] Established: textbook consensus, a proved theorem, direct measurement, or a standard etymology (SAOB, Hellquist, OED, etymonline)
[S] Supported: leading model or majority scholarly reading, strong but incomplete evidence
[H] Hypothesis: open, contested, or without decisive evidence
[D] Draken synthesis: structural claim made by this corpus, submitted for Clinch review
[M] Metaphor or paronomasia: a pointer, not a referent or root (per The Pendragon Source, DRK-165)

§1 Crowley: will as the operator

Crowley defined magick as the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will, and drew from it a first theorem: every intentional act is a magical act (Crowley 1929) [E]. He was explicit that the definition includes ordinary acts; his example of a magical operation is a man blowing his nose (Crowley 1929) [E]. On this definition magick is not a special class of events but a description of any willed change [E].

The Book of the Law, which Crowley said he received in Cairo in 1904 and first printed in 1909, supplies the ethic: each person has a True Will, and every man and every woman is a star (Crowley 1909) [E]. Thelema is individualist at its root [S]. In Draken terms each star is a stalk with its own section, and the Great Work is finding the section that is one's own rather than one imposed from outside [D].

Crowley also gave the tradition its psychological reading. In his introduction to the 1904 Goetia he wrote that the spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain, and that the names and seals are means of stimulating particular faculties (Crowley 1904) [E]. Lon Milo DuQuette, a senior officer of Ordo Templi Orientis, compressed the same view: it's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is (DuQuette 2010) [E].

So the modern tradition's own interpreters locate magic in the minds that perform and read it [E]. This post takes them at their word and asks what kind of operation that is: an operation on maps of relations, carried by symbols [D].

§2 What the words remember

The vocabulary of magic is a vocabulary of language and power:

  • Magic comes from Greek magikē, from magos, a borrowing of Old Persian maguš, a member of the priestly class (Online Etymology Dictionary, magic) [E]. A further link to the PIE root *magh- "to be able, have power" is possible but not secure [H]. The same root is secure for English might and may and Swedish makt [E], and is proposed, and disputed, for machine via Greek mēkhanē [H].
  • Grimoire is French grammaire, "grammar", altered in a sense that included incantation; glamour is Scottish gramarye, "magic, enchantment", from the medieval sense of grammar as learning, especially occult learning (Online Etymology Dictionary, grimoire, glamour) [E]. The magician's book is literally a grammar.
  • Spell in the magical sense is Old English spel, "story, saying, discourse" [E]. A spell is a told thing.
  • Sigil is Late Latin sigillum, "seal", a diminutive of signum, "sign" (Online Etymology Dictionary, sigil) [E].
  • Curse, Old English curs, is of uncertain origin; one proposal derives it from Latin cursus in the liturgical sense of a set sequence of prayers [H].

The tradition's own words describe magic as grammar, story, sign and set formula [D]. None of them names a force. That is what one would expect if the operations were always symbolic and the effects always passed through minds [D].

§3 Hermeneutics: effects pass through reading

Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpretation. Its Greek root hermēneuein, "to interpret", is of unknown origin; the old derivation from Hermes, god of speech and messengers, is no longer accepted (Online Etymology Dictionary, hermeneutic) [E]. The link to Hermes, and so to Hermeticism, is a pointer, not a root [M].

Gadamer (1960) argued that understanding always happens from within a horizon of prior meaning, and that interpretation is a fusion of the reader's horizon with the text's [E]. Applied here: a symbol does nothing until it is read, and what it does depends on the horizon of the reader [D]. A seal from the Goetia acts on a trained practitioner whose horizon contains its correspondences; on anyone else it is a drawing [D].

A magical operation therefore has three terms, not two: the symbol, the target, and the interpreting mind that connects them [D]. Remove the interpreter and no pathway remains that the evidence supports [S].

§4 The sigil as a compressed packet with a forgotten key

Austin Osman Spare described what became the standard modern sigil technique: write a statement of desire, strike out repeated letters, combine the remainder into a single glyph, then deliberately forget what it means while holding the glyph in attention (Spare 1913) [E].

In information terms this is a lossy, many-to-one encoding followed by removal of the decoding key from conscious access [D]. The glyph is a pointer; the table that resolves it is kept only in the practitioner's non-conscious associations [D]. Naming, as The Countable Mouth (DRK-181) argued, is already a quotient map that identifies many instances as one class; the sigil is a quotient map applied to a single intention [D].

It is the exact inverse of error correction. The Warded Class (DRK-190) showed that a quantum code protects information by adding redundancy until no light error can reach it. A sigil removes redundancy: its code distance is one, and a single misreading loses the content [D]. What it may protect against is conscious interference: second-guessing, doubt, over-monitoring [H].

A documented mechanism has a similar shape. Implementation intentions, plans of the form "when situation X arises, I will do Y", reliably improve goal attainment, and Gollwitzer (1999) attributes the effect to handing control of the response to the situational cue [S]. A charged sigil may be an unusually compressed cue of this kind [H]. The difference is that an implementation intention keeps its content explicit, while the sigil hides it [E]. Whether hiding helps or hurts is testable (§11, F1).

§5 The Goetia as an indexed directory

The Lesser Key of Solomon, or Lemegeton, is a seventeenth-century compilation in five books; the first, the Ars Goetia, lists seventy-two spirits, each with a name, rank, number of legions, offices and a seal (Peterson 2001) [E]. Much of the list parallels Johann Weyer's Pseudomonarchia Daemonum of 1577 [S]. The attribution to King Solomon is pseudepigraphic [E], a case of source laundering in the sense of The Pendragon Source (DRK-165): an early-modern text acquiring authority by claiming a biblical author [D].

Structurally, the list is a typed directory [D]. Each entry maps a function (teaching sciences, finding lost things, reconciling friends, causing love or hatred) to an identifier (the seal) and a place in a hierarchy (the rank) [E]. Under Crowley's 1904 reading, each seal is an address into the practitioner's own faculties, and the ritual is a procedure for calling one faculty to the foreground [D].

The ritual apparatus adds a boundary. The operator stands in a circle and the spirit is called into a triangle outside it (Crowley 1904) [E]. DuQuette (2010) describes the work as trapping the worst of oneself in the triangle and giving it new orders [E]. In Draken terms the triangle is a restriction map: a local section confined to a bounded region so that it cannot glue with the rest uncontrolled [D]. It is the move of Gleipnir in The Held Mouth (DRK-182), applied by the operator to a part of the operator [D].

§6 Units of human thinking

If magic operates on symbolic maps, what is the unit on the map? Three answers exist outside occultism [E].

Durkheim (1912) described collective representations: ideas that belong to a society rather than to any individual and constrain the individuals who hold them [E]. Dawkins (1976) proposed the meme as a unit of cultural transmission that is copied from mind to mind as a gene is copied from cell to cell [E]. Sperber (1996) objected that ideas are not copied but reconstructed: each mind rebuilds a representation from partial cues, and representations stabilise in a population because reconstruction is pulled toward the same few attractors [S].

Sperber's correction matters for this post [D]. If ideas were copied, a symbol would carry its meaning with it. If they are reconstructed, the meaning lives in the readers' restriction maps, and a symbol spreads only where many minds rebuild it the same way [D]. That is exactly the hermeneutic claim of §3, restated as population dynamics [D].

In Draken terms the unit of thinking is not a thing inside one head. It is a section over several stalks, stable to the extent that their restriction maps agree [D]. The countable unit the corpus is building toward, a term that is defined once and reused elsewhere, is the same idea applied to a body of text [D].

§7 Egregores: sections that outlive their stalks

Egregore comes into modern use through Victor Hugo's La Légende des siècles (1859) and was taken up by Éliphas Lévi, who connected it with the Watchers of 1 Enoch; from there it passed into French Martinism and later occult orders as a name for a collective thought-form (Stavish 2018) [S]. Övervakaren och Undervakaren (DRK-178) traced the same word back to the Enochic watchers and noted that the derivation is common but not uncontested [S].

Read with §6, an egregore is a collective representation seen from the inside [D]. Practitioners describe it as an entity that grows as a group feeds it attention and then shapes the group in return [S]. The documented part of that description is the feedback: a group's shared symbols constrain what its members can think and say, and members' use keeps the symbols stable (Durkheim 1912) [E]. The Draken reading is that an egregore is a well-glued section whose stability no longer depends on any single stalk [D]. It outlives its founders, as a corporation outlives its staff [S].

Two properties follow [D]:

  1. Reach. An egregore's influence scales with the number of minds that reconstruct its symbols the same way. A private sigil has reach one; a shared seal has the reach of its readership.
  2. Pull. The better glued the section, the harder it is for one stalk to hold a different value. Past a threshold the collective section overrides the individual one. That is the mechanism of The Totalitarian Sheaf (DRK-125), operating at the scale of a small group.

This is where Thelema and a closed order pull in opposite directions [D]. Thelema says every man and every woman is a star, each with its own will (Crowley 1909). An egregore with strong pull substitutes the group's will for the star's [D].

§8 The MLO: an anti-cosmic egregore

The Misanthropic Luciferian Order (Misantropiska Lucifer Orden) was founded in Sweden in 1995, later renamed the Temple of the Black Light, and teaches what it calls Chaos-Gnostic Satanism or Current 218 (Wikipedia contributors 2026a) [S]. Its doctrine is anti-cosmic: it accepts that the world was created, rejects that creation, and seeks its undoing through ritual, in favour of a chaos conceived as formless and outside linear time (Frater Nemidial 2002; Wikipedia contributors 2026a) [S]. Scholars of religion place it within a broader anti-cosmic current of the Satanic milieu that combines Gnostic dualism, a rejection of the material world and a demand for radical freedom (Olson 2014; Granholm 2012; Dyrendal, Lewis & Petersen 2016) [S].

Its texts are:

  • Liber Azerate (2002), by the order's Magister Templi under the name Frater Nemidial, released online in Swedish and Norwegian. Azerate is its name for eleven anti-cosmic gods, and the Dissection album Reinkaos (2006) was, by its songwriter's account, based on it (Frater Nemidial 2002; Wikipedia contributors 2026a) [S].
  • Liber Falxifer (N.A-A.218 2008), Liber Falxifer II (N.A-A.218 2011) and Liber Falxifer III (N.A-A.218 2016), published by Ixaxaar, on a death-cult current associated with the related Templum Falcis Cruentis [S].
  • The Book of Sitra Achra (N.A-A.218 2013), a catalogue of the Qliphoth, the "other side" of Kabbalistic cosmology, with their seals [S].

Structurally these are grimoires in the sense of §5: directories that map names to seals to functions [D]. The difference lies in what they index. The Goetia catalogues forces to be summoned and bound within the created world. The Sitra Achra catalogue indexes the forces of its negation [D].

In Draken terms the anti-cosmic programme is a demand that the global section cease to exist [D]. The Invariant (DRK-175) named two ways to kill a coherent system: from below, collapse to the vacuum, and from above, obstruction so dense that no class remains legible. Anti-cosmism aims at the second, chaos as the singularity pole [D]. Thelema affirms the stars; the MLO would dissolve the space they sit in [D].

The order's history shows the egregore mechanism of §7 in its most dangerous form. According to the police investigation as summarised in the published record, the order never had more than a handful of members; in the weeks before the killing, its founder's rhetoric turned to human sacrifice, those who would not take part left, and at the arrests three active members remained (Wikipedia contributors 2026b) [S]. On 23 July 1997 the founder and Jon Nödtveidt of Dissection killed Josef ben Meddour, a 36-year-old Algerian man who had lived in Sweden for about ten years, in Keillers park in Göteborg. The Court of Appeal for Western Sweden sentenced both to ten years in prison, the founder for murder and Nödtveidt as an accessory (Wikipedia contributors 2026b) [E]. The motive was not established in court; the police registered the killing as a hate crime, and the lead investigator judged homophobia a major factor alongside the Satanist setting (Wikipedia contributors 2026b) [S].

The pattern is the pull of §7 without a counterweight: a small, tightly glued section whose doctrine classified the world as a lie, whose members who kept their own judgement left, and whose remainder acted [D]. That is a structural reading of a documented sequence. It is not a causal account of why two people killed a third, and it does not move responsibility from the people who did it to their symbols [D].

§9 Curses as algorithmic projections

Frazer (1890) classified sympathetic magic under two principles: similarity (like produces like) and contagion (things once in contact continue to act on each other) [E]. Both are mapping rules: a curse takes a representation of the target (an image, a name, a hair) and applies an operation to the representation in the expectation that it propagates to the target [D].

Austin (1962) showed that some utterances do not describe but perform: "I name this ship", "I sentence you" [E]. Tambiah (1968) applied this to ritual language, arguing that magical words work as performatives within a social frame [S]. A curse is a performative whose force depends on the frame being shared [D].

The documented pathway is the nocebo effect: negative expectations can produce real symptoms and worsen outcomes (Colloca & Miller 2011) [E]. Cannon (1942) proposed that deaths attributed to sorcery could result from extreme fear acting on the body; this remains a historical hypothesis, not an established mechanism [H]. Both routes need the target to know [S].

The modern analogue is exact in structure. A scoring system that attaches a label to a person (credit risk, fraud risk, a predicted category) and changes how others treat them is a projection from a representation to a target [D]. It does not need the target's belief; it works through other people acting on the label [D]. It is the curse with the interpreter moved outside the victim.

The most dangerous projection is the one §8 describes: a doctrine that classifies everything outside the group as false supplies a category, and a group that acts on the category supplies the target [D]. There the projection does not pass through the victim's belief at all. It passes through the believers' hands [D].

§10 Formal sketch (analogy, not derivation)

Let a mind be a stalk $\mathcal F(v)$ over a node $v$ of a social graph, and let an intention be a section $s \in \mathcal F(v)$ [D].

  • Sigil. A quotient map $q: \mathcal F(v) \to \Sigma$ onto a small glyph alphabet, with a decoding key $k_v$ held only at $v$. The glyph $\sigma = q(s)$ carries little information on its own: $H(s \mid \sigma)$ is large for anyone without $k_v$ (Shannon 1948) [D].
  • Unit of thinking. A symbol $\sigma$ together with reconstruction maps $r_u: \Sigma \to \mathcal F(u)$ at each reader $u$. It is stable over a set $U$ when the reconstructions agree on overlaps, that is, when $\{r_u(\sigma)\}_{u\in U}$ glue to a section over $U$ (Sperber 1996) [D].
  • Egregore. Such a section over a large $U$ whose value no longer changes when any single stalk is removed; its pull is the cost to one stalk of holding a value that disagrees with it [D].
  • Anti-cosmic programme. A demand that no global section exist over the whole base space; in the language of The Invariant (DRK-175), obstruction pushed until no class is legible [D].
  • Curse. A projection $\pi_T$ from a representation $r_T$ to the target's stalk $\mathcal F(T)$ that acts only if the target's restriction maps accept it; the algorithmic and doctrinal curses route $\pi_T$ through third parties' stalks instead [D].

Nothing here derives an effect. The sketch states where, in each case, the evidence says the effect must pass [D].

§11 Falsification (DRK-131)

F1: Sigil versus explicit plan. §4 treats a charged sigil as a compressed implementation intention with a hidden key. Refuted if, in a randomised comparison of explicit implementation intentions, sigil-encoded intentions and a no-plan control, the sigil condition performs no better than control while explicit plans do.

F2: Curses need a channel. §3 and §9 predict that a curse has no measurable effect on a target who does not know of it and whom no one acts upon. Refuted if a blinded, pre-registered study finds such effects beyond chance.

F3: Reconstruction, not copying. §6 predicts that symbols with shared, learned meanings produce larger expectation effects than private symbols of equal salience. Refuted if matched comparisons show no difference.

F4: Pull and exit. §7 and §8 predict that in small groups organised around a totalising doctrine, members who dissent leave before the group escalates, so that escalation happens in the residue. Refuted if comparative case data on such groups show escalation without prior attrition as often as with it.

F5: Scope limit. Nothing here claims that magic works outside psychological and social pathways, that the magical tradition is a science, or that doctrine alone explains violence. If F1–F4 fail, §2 remains an etymological observation and §5 and §8 structural descriptions of texts.

§12 Provenance and leaks

  1. Authorship. Topic and theses (magic as informatic change, sigils as compressed intent, egregores, curses as algorithmic projections, the MLO) supplied by Khrug; drafted by Claude (Anthropic). Not yet reviewed by the Clinch. A section on training as mind control was removed at Khrug's request.
  2. MLO texts. The MLO and Templum Falcis Cruentis books are cited bibliographically for the record and deliberately not linked. None was read in full for this post. The doctrinal summary in §8 relies on the Wikipedia article (which cites Liber Azerate by page) and on the scholarship cited; the book descriptions rely on publisher and reviewer descriptions. Publication years for the Falxifer volumes are from bibliographic listings and an Ixaxaar interview and disagree in places: Liber Falxifer is listed as 2008 on Goodreads and 2010 on Wikipedia; Liber Falxifer III is dated from a 2016 interview describing it as recently released.
  3. The 1997 killing. The account in §8 relies on the Wikipedia article on the Keillers Park murder, which cites the court records, the lead investigator Lars Ohlin's account, reprinted in Veckans brott issue 31 of 2012, and a 2013 Sveriges Radio P3 documentary; none of these primary sources was consulted here. The order's own later account that the victim was chosen at random is not adopted.
  4. Crowley and DuQuette. Crowley's 1904 introduction was checked in its Hermetic Library transcription; the 1929 theorems in published excerpts. The Lemegeton and Weyer were not consulted directly; §5 relies on Peterson's edition.
  5. Egregore history relies on Stavish (2018) as summarised in a published review; Hugo and Lévi were not consulted directly.
  6. Verified by lookup: the DOIs for Cannon, Colloca & Miller, Gollwitzer, Granholm, Olson, Shannon and Tambiah (Crossref), and all etymologies (Online Etymology Dictionary). Other book references are standard bibliographic data, not checked against copies.

References

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Cannon, W. B. (1942). "Voodoo" death. American Anthropologist 44, 169–181. doi:10.1525/aa.1942.44.2.02a00010
  • Colloca, L. & Miller, F. G. (2011). The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosomatic Medicine 73, 598–603. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182294a50
  • Crowley, A. (ed.) (1904). The Book of the Goetia of Solomon the King. Trans. S. L. MacGregor Mathers. Foyers: Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth.
  • Crowley, A. (1909). ΘΕΛΗΜΑ [containing Liber L vel Legis, The Book of the Law, received 1904]. London: privately printed.
  • Crowley, A. (1929). Magick in Theory and Practice. Paris: Lecram Press.
  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • DuQuette, L. M. (2010). Low Magick: It's All in Your Head ... You Just Have No Idea How Big Your Head Is. Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn.
  • Durkheim, É. (1912). Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Paris: Alcan.
  • Dyrendal, A., Lewis, J. R. & Petersen, J. Aa. (2016). The Invention of Satanism. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Frater Nemidial [Khoshnood-Sharis, N.] (2002). Liber Azerate. Misanthropic Luciferian Order. Released online in Swedish and Norwegian.
  • Frazer, J. G. (1890). The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion. London: Macmillan.
  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist 54, 493–503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
  • Granholm, K. (2012). The Left-Hand Path and Post-Satanism: The Temple of Set and the Evolution of Satanism. In P. Faxneld & J. Aa. Petersen (eds.), The Devil's Party: Satanism in Modernity, 209–228. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199779239.003.0010
  • N.A-A.218 (2008). Liber Falxifer: The Book of the Left-Handed Reaper. Ixaxaar.
  • N.A-A.218 (2011). Liber Falxifer II: The Book of Anamlaqayin. Ixaxaar.
  • N.A-A.218 (2013). The Book of Sitra Achra: A Grimoire of the Dragons of the Other Side. Ixaxaar.
  • N.A-A.218 (2016). Liber Falxifer III. Ixaxaar.
  • Olson, B. (2014). At the threshold of the inverted womb: Anti-cosmic Satanism and radical freedom. International Journal for the Study of New Religions 4, 231–249. doi:10.1558/ijsnr.v4i2.231
  • Online Etymology Dictionary. Entries magic, *magh-, grimoire, glamour, spell, sigil, curse, hermeneutic. etymonline.com
  • Peterson, J. H. (ed.) (2001). The Lesser Key of Solomon: Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis. York Beach, ME: Weiser.
  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  • Spare, A. O. (1913). The Book of Pleasure (Self-Love): The Psychology of Ecstasy. London: privately published.
  • Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stavish, M. (2018). Egregores: The Occult Entities That Watch Over Human Destiny. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
  • Tambiah, S. J. (1968). The magical power of words. Man 3, 175–208. doi:10.2307/2798500
  • Wikipedia contributors (2026a). Temple of the Black Light. Wikipedia, accessed 2026-09-30. en.wikipedia.org
  • Wikipedia contributors (2026b). Keillers Park murder. Wikipedia, accessed 2026-09-30. en.wikipedia.org

Operators: $\rho$ (restriction map), $q$ (quotient map), $H^0$ (global section), $\varkappa\in H^1$, $H(s \mid \sigma)$ · Crosslinks: The Totalitarian Sheaf (DRK-125) · The Pendragon Source (DRK-165) · The Invariant (DRK-175) · Övervakaren och Undervakaren (DRK-178) · The Countable Mouth (DRK-181) · The Held Mouth (DRK-182) · The Warded Class (DRK-190)

Det som skrivs i glömska läses av den som glömt.

Khrug Engineering · Göteborg · ORCID 0009-0003-8049-7167 · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19273483 · CC BY-SA 4.0