Fundamentals of Operating in a Magickal World
I’ve been thinking a great deal lately about the fundamentals of operating in a magickal world. The fundamentals I have identified are based on my observation and experience that operating effectively in the magickal world is not fundamentally different from operating effectively in the so-called “real” world. That may not be the most exciting parallel, but it is the most instructive one. This approach, I think, is far more pragmatic than attempting to define magick itself. Conversations centered on definition rarely prove fruitful and, more often than not, generate confusion rather than clarity. In this essay, I concern myself with what can actually be observed and experienced: the conditions under which we can operate effectively, coherently, and responsibly in a magickal world.
Before turning to the particular fundamentals, it is necessary to clarify what I mean by effective, coherent, and responsible. These terms are not intended as linguistic hand-waving or vagueness. They were chosen deliberately, in part, to push back against common misconceptions of magick as chaotic, purely aesthetic, or as a form of personal expression untethered from structure or consequence. If magick operates in a manner analogous to the ordinary world, then we unfortunately cannot simply do whatever we want. We may try, but our actions remain constrained by structure, hierarchy, authority, and consequence, whether we acknowledge them or not.
In ordinary life, we navigate the world on the assumption that actions have patterned consequences: certain behaviors reliably produce stability, while others predictably generate disorder. These expectations arise from hierarchy, norms, roles, and constraints that shape what is possible within a given context. The magickal world, I argue, is no different. Chaos exists, but it functions as the exception rather than the rule. Structure, order, and hierarchy are what make both daily life and magickal practice intelligible at all. When these are ignored, outcomes become erratic and can be dangerous—not because the world is irrational, but because the practitioner has attempted to operate outside the conditions that make meaningful action possible.
At this point, a final question must be addressed. If structure, authority, hierarchy, and consequence are real, is there still room for skill, strategy, and adaptation? Can one learn a system well enough to navigate it effectively, to recognize points of flexibility, or to establish relationships with spiritual creatures or intermediaries that aid in navigation? I argue that the answer to these questions is yes. Acknowledging order does not imply a rigid or monochrome world. Reality is not black and white.
There is often a great deal of gray—but that gray is navigable only through understanding, discipline, and relationship, not through denial of structure itself. The impact of such understanding is not uniform; it depends largely on the beliefs the practitioner brings into the system. A magician who approaches hierarchy and authority as inherently illegitimate will predictably struggle within traditions that assume their necessity—or will reinterpret them as subversive, even while continuing to operate within their underlying structures.
This tension is especially visible in modern reactions to Christian grimoires, where hierarchy, authority, and order are explicit and unavoidable. Many practitioners bring strong emotional responses to these texts, often rooted less in their operative logic than in broader cultural and religious histories. While a full exploration of this dynamic lies beyond the scope of the present essay, it serves as a useful example of how cultural forces shape not only how magick is interpreted, but whether it is meaningfully engaged at all.
With these preliminaries in place, we may now turn to the fundamentals themselves, beginning with hierarchy.
Hierarchy
Hierarchy is the first and most fundamental condition for operating in a magickal world. Both the ordinary and magickal worlds are ordered, and that order is expressed through hierarchy. Hierarchy is not a later imposition but a feature established through the process of creation itself. No matter which model of magick one adopts—whether predominantly linear or more cyclical—this principle still applies. Both models assume differentiated levels of authority, function, and scope among spiritual beings and the worlds they inhabit.
Hierarchy describes rank, scope, and relative position within an ordered system. It answers foundational questions about how power and authority are distributed, and it gives rise to the practical concerns that lie at the heart of magickal operation. Rather than framing magick in terms of who may command and who must obey, it is often more accurate to ask who one properly approaches, through whom engagement is made, and what forms of authority actually yield effective results. Magick operates within an ordered field of relationships, not through raw assertion of will. Some powers are addressed directly, others only through mediation; some respond to petition, others to obligation, office, or established constraint.
Authority, in this sense, is not self-generated but arises from alignment with an existing hierarchy that governs how influence moves and is applied. By understanding who mediates, who constrains, and how governance functions within that structure, the practitioner works coherently within the system—acting in accordance with its internal logic rather than presuming authority where none has been established. This hierarchy is not abstract or symbolic; it is functionally real. It determines how one approaches the magickal world and its inhabitants, what forms of action are appropriate, and how movement within that order is possible. Functioning within this hierarchy is therefore not optional, but necessary for effective practice.
Structure and Conditions
If hierarchy establishes that authority, scope, and position are real, then structure and conditions explain how that authority is made usable. Hierarchy describes who occupies a given place within an ordered system; structure determines how interaction within that order occurs; conditions define the circumstances under which that interaction is permitted, sustained, and brought to completion. Without structure and conditions, hierarchy remains abstract. With them, it becomes actionable.
In ordinary life, structure gives ordered form to authority. Laws, offices, procedures, schedules, and protocols do not create hierarchy; they translate it into repeatable patterns of action. Conditions—time, place, role, permission, and constraint—govern when and how that authority may be exercised. Together, structure and conditions constrain behavior, but in doing so they enable clarity, coordination, and meaningful outcomes. Complex systems do not function through assertion alone. They function because authority is embedded within form.
The magickal world operates according to the same logic. Ritual forms, symbols, names, timing, direction, gestures, tools, and sequences are not aesthetic embellishments or personal flourishes. They are the structures and conditions through which magickal authority is engaged and exercised. They determine how contact is established, how interaction is initiated and sustained, and how power is directed without dissolving into confusion or harm.
This naturally gives rise to a set of practical questions:
By what means may contact be established
What forms of address are appropriate
What names, symbols, or rites are required
What sequence of actions must be followed
What constraints, protections, and boundaries must be in place
These are not matters of preference or creativity. They determine how interaction can be intelligible. To ignore structure and conditions is not to gain freedom, but to invite instability—and, in practical terms, poor results, if any results at all.
Importantly, structure and conditions are not opposed to skill, adaptability, or depth. They are the precondition for them. Mastery in any domain arises through fluency within form, not through its rejection. The so-called “gray areas” of magickal practice—those points of nuance, flexibility, and discernment—are available precisely because structure exists. Without form, there would be nothing to work within and nothing to work against.
When structure and conditions are understood and respected, hierarchy can function, relationship can develop, and responsibility can be meaningfully enacted. Without them, authority cannot be engaged, action cannot be stabilized, and sustained magickal practice becomes inconsistent and unreliable.
A useful analogy appears in The Silence of the Lambs. Clarice Starling’s interactions with Hannibal Lecter are possible only because of an extreme and carefully maintained structure. Physical restraints, controlled environments, protocols of approach, and strict boundaries are not incidental—they are the conditions that make any interaction survivable, intelligible, and purposeful. The relationship does not emerge in spite of structure, but because of it. Remove the conditions, and contact becomes reckless and potentially lethal.
This dynamic is directly analogous to magickal practice. Structure, constraint, protocol, and protection are what allow relationship with powerful intelligences to occur. Relationship follows structure; it does not precede it.
A real-world example makes this even clearer. I had a closer relationship with my maternal grandfather than many of the other grandchildren, and this was not accidental. My grandfather was from Syria, and his understanding of family, authority, and obligation differed significantly from the more informal expectations common in American culture. Rather than resisting this, I adjusted my behavior to meet him within his own framework. That adjustment required recognition of hierarchy and adherence to structure and conditions.
Over time, this resulted in a deeper relationship and tangible benefits later in life—benefits that would not have been accessible had I insisted on approaching the relationship solely on my own terms. I learned how he preferred to be addressed, what he valued, and how respect was demonstrated in action rather than sentiment. I engaged in activities he found meaningful, assisted him when he needed help, and conducted myself according to his expectations whether he was watching or not.
The relevance of this example is not emotional closeness, but mechanism. Relationship emerged through respect for hierarchy and participation in an existing structure under defined conditions. The same principle applies in magickal practice: access and cooperation are not secured by preference, assertion, or intent alone, but by learning how a system functions and choosing to operate within it. Once hierarchy, structure, and conditions are in place, relationship becomes the means through which authority is accessed, influence is exercised, and interaction is sustained.
Relationship
In both the ordinary and magickal worlds, authority rarely functions in isolation; it is mediated through relationship. While this may not be the most equitable truth of life, access to power is often shaped by the relationships one cultivates with those who possess greater authority or power. Interestingly, this dynamic is frequently criticized in the material world, yet largely accepted in magickal contexts.
In everyday life, formal authority may exist on paper, but effectiveness is shaped by familiarity, trust, obligation, reputation, and skill. Access expands through reliability, influence grows through consistency, and cooperation emerges through mutual recognition. Relationship does not erase hierarchy, but determines how hierarchy is actually encountered and navigated in practice. In this sense, relationship largely determines a magician’s access to power and authority.
When relationship is described as the means by which authority is accessed, this authority should not be understood as personal dominance or self-generated power. Historically, spiritual authority—often described as charisma—was conferred through relationship with intermediary forces. As B. J. Swain and others have noted, authority was established and reinforced through ancestors, spirits of place, and other intelligible intermediaries. These relationships situated the practitioner within a broader network of legitimacy and recognition. Authority, in this sense, was received rather than seized. This is not to devalue magickal skill or technical practice, but skill alone is rarely sufficient. Relationship with spiritual intelligences is necessary for sustained and effective work.
These relationships, to continue the comparative thread of this essay, closely resemble those of the material world. When human relationships are cultivated through presence, participation, and reciprocity, they tend to deepen over time. When they are neglected—through avoidance, inconsistency, or indifference—they weaken and may dissolve altogether. If a company’s leadership extends an invitation and it is repeatedly ignored, the relationship does not remain neutral; distance is created. The same dynamic applies in magickal practice. Relationship requires ongoing engagement. Without reciprocity, access diminishes and authority loses its grounding.
Conclusion
The fundamentals of operating in a magickal world are not necessarily dependent on an agreed-upon definition of magick. They instead provide a practical framework for engagement—one that allows us to operate within an ordered reality effectively, coherently, and responsibly, regardless of how magick is ultimately defined.
In this way, magick is not separated from the ordinary world but embedded within it, governed by many of the same demands for discernment, discipline, and relational accountability. Where these fundamentals are respected and embraced, the efficacy and sustainability of practice naturally increase.
—
Frater Henosis
Footnotes
Debates surrounding the definition of magick tend to be unproductive for several recurring reasons. First, magick is embedded within culturally conditioned frameworks that shape how it is interpreted, practiced, and discussed; definitions often reveal more about the practitioner’s historical moment than the phenomenon itself. Second, magick is inherently participatory and operational, resisting reduction to purely descriptive or theoretical language. Magick is elusive and difficult to define; however, the community could improve its ability to engage in more productive conversation. In my opinion, culturally conditioned forces of the present exert the greatest influence on these debates. I hope to explore this issue in greater depth in future work.
2. B. J. Swain, Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits (self-published, 2018), 102.
Bibliography
B. J. Swain, Living Spirits: A Guide to Magic in a World of Spirits (self-published, 2018)
