Submission to Academia Letters

Symbols in Magic: Tools for Transforming Real-

ity
Markéta Muczková, Palacky University, Olomouc

Abstract
The following paper focuses on the role and function of symbolic language in
magical practice. The first part explains the symbol as a linguistic term with all
its arbitrary features fulfilling the necessary function and condition of ordinary
communication. The next section deals with symbols that fulfill the essential
role for transforming reality within the framework of magical practice. The ex-
amples of sigil magic and Tarot explain the paradigm which uses the symbolic
language as a mandatory condition for its existence and simultaneously, ignores
the arbitrariness and shared awareness of the origin of the symbol as a funda-
mental element of its functionality. This paper demonstrates how the symbols
used in everyday communication and the symbols used in magical practice are
two different entities performing different kinds of functions.
Key words: Magic, Symbol, Sigil, Tarot, Semiotics, Linguistics

Introduction
When it comes to magic, what comes to most people’s minds are obscure prac-
tices shrouded in mystery that are allowed to be glimpsed only by a few chosen
ones. Magical symbols, alchemical signs, mysterious names of demonic or divine
spirits and incantations of the supernatural entities attract public interest in

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

1
arts, books, legends and folklore ever since the human cognitive tools adapted
enough to provide abstract imagination to a mankind.

Symbols in semiotics
A symbol is a sign whose components are connected arbitrarily, conventionally
or by an agreement. (Gvoždiak, 2014, p. 87) Symbol consists of establishing a
relationship between the sign and the referent, while the user of the sign is aware
of the fact that the sign is different from the referent. (see Bates & Bretherton,
1979) This means that the essence of the symbol is identical to the essence of
the sign as such. It follows that the connection of expression and content in
words does not depend on the form of the object, phenomenon or action to
which it refers; we are able to talk about signs because we are familiar with the
concept that created these signs. (Gvoždiak, 2014, p. 88)
Arbitrariness in this context becomes the key nub of the functioning of signs
and symbols. (see Saussure et al., 2007) If signs were constructed to be directly
dependent on what they denote, each named object would have to have its own
name, including all possible conceivable states of that object. Therefore, we
could not consider these signs as signs at all, because they would not perform
the function of representation. For this reason, it is more economical to use
(and create) signs as arbitrary, although they seem counterintuitive that way,
since they allow us to operate with the principle of categorization, and that is
although despite the fact that their creation is always more demanding in terms
of memory and learning. (Gvoždiak, 2014, pp. 88–90)

Magic and symbolic language

The common paradigm states, “I have to know the meaning of some symbols in
order for them to speak to me.” (Doubravová, 2002, p. 8) I believe this is not
the case for magic. The symbolic language of magic is not a list of signs, but
rather a countless number of mysterious tokens (marks). Magic language makes
extensive use of formulas (Hirschová, 2017) “if”, “then”, “this”, (Doubravová,
2002, p. 108) thus suggestively proposing to the recipient that all actions have

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

2
a reason, an intention, an effect – that is, there is a kind of rational causality,
without the recipient explicitly understanding the symbols. Umberto Eco refers
to these as secret codes or, ciphers. These secret codes, although usually un-
derstood only by the originator, belong to the semiotic system and may include
secret messages, divination, card interpreting (reading), along with others. (Eco
& Marmo, 1989)

Magical creation of new codes and symbols

The main idea of magical practice is that the world around us is fully symbolic,
and by changing our codes regarding reality, changes can be achieved in reality
itself; that is, magic can transform reality. (Dunn, 2008, p. 8)

Sigil magic
How it is possible in magic to change reality by changing codes can be best
demonstrated on the example of sigils. Sigil magic, even though it already ap-
pears in Kabbala and much earlier, was first introduced more comprehensively
by the occultist Austin Osman Spare. This technique is based on the relation-
ship between the conscious and the subconscious, and its exact procedure was
described by the magician Frater V฀D฀. (see Frater V฀D฀, 2010)
A sigillum is a monogram that represents the magician’s desire/intention,
originally formulated in a sentence which is transformed by a combination of
its letters into a symbol that signifies the desire. (Dunn, 2005, p. 116) Once
a symbol is created, the magician must activate it. Activation is most often
achieved through orgasm, intentional physical pain, or a state of deep medita-
tion. Subsequently, the magician forgets the whole operation and the sigillum
becomes active.
From the point of view of semiotics, the activation of the sigil is a restruc-
turing of codes that we interpret as reality. By creating a symbol (sigil) itself,
there is no immediate achievement of transcoding, because contemplation over
such an uncharged sigil reinforces in the subconscious the already pre-existing
codes that prevent individual magical manifestation. For the magician to be

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

3
able to restructure the old codes into their own, they must first destroy the old
ones. The way they accomplish this is by completely turning off the perception
of reality (the network of pre-existing codes) and their own conscious mind as
such. This can be best achieved through a state of physical pain or orgasm. If
the first thing the magician sees after these states is their own created sigillum,
the code will be rewritten; the new code will contain the intention of the created
sigil; both the operation and the pre-existing codes will be forgotten and that
will be followed by a shift from consciousness to subconsciousness. (Dunn, 2008,
p. 9) From now on, the sigillum becomes part of the world and is active; both
for the magician, and even for those who do not know its meaning.
The idea contained in the sigil contains more information than a sentence
itself could represent; it encompasses so much information that no one but the
mage who created it can decipher it. What’s more, a good magician should
forget the specific purpose for which the sigillum was created. It seems para-
doxical, but in reality, it is necessary to distinguish information and meaning,
as they are two different things. For example, the hitherto undeciphered Ron-
gorongo glyph system has not been decoded, yet, but this does not mean that
the tablets written in this language do not carry any information. (Dunn, 2008,
p. 73)

Tarot
The well-known Tarot cards work on a similar basis. A deck of tarot cards
consists of 78 cards, each containing a basic symbol and other accompany-
ing attributes that may vary depending on the specific artistic representation.
(Semetsky, 2012, p. 28) In this way, the attributes of the cards open the
field of semantic polysemy, which varies depending on the specific cultural code
and diverse contextual interpretation. (Semetsky, 2014, p. 173) The symbols
themselves are understood as archetypal and allow the communication between
unconsciousness and consciousness; they have an integrative function and act
representatively within a specific situation. The main function of the Tarot is a
therapeutic transformation of habits into the revelation of the meanings of ex-
periences, thus representing the process of individualization within a particular

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

4
context. (Dunn, 2005, p. 158)
It is an offshoot of magical divination based on the assignment of symbolic
meanings of cards, which are interpreted according to the intentions of the
reading subject and further modified considering the context of individual read-
ing. (Semetsky, 1998, p. 38) We are speaking about a relation which connects
Pierce’s semiotics and Jung’s analytical archetypal psychology with respect to
the context and emotions of the subject who interprets them, (Semetsky, 2009,
p. 47) thus reinforcing the actual process of individuality in objective reality.

Conclusion
At the beginning of this paper, I mentioned that we need to know the meaning
of some symbols in order for them to speak to us, and that we are able to
talk about them because we are familiar with the concepts which created them.
Subsequently, using the example of sigils and Tarot, I demonstrated that this
paradigm is not absolutely necessary in the language of magic, and that is
because the true meaning of a symbol is often known only to its author, but
anyone can still work effectively with the symbol itself.
Unlike ordinary communication, in which we have to agree on the meaning
in order to share information, in magical practice information itself is sufficient
to form an individual meaning. Through magical practice, we create our own
world in which we live and to which we attribute meaning that we understand.
As a result, magical practice may appear to completely transform the reality
around us.

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

5
References
Bates, E., & Bretherton, I. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and
communication in infancy (1st ed.). Academic Press.

Doubravová, J. (2002). Sémiotika v teorii a praxi: Proměny a stav oboru do

konce 20. století (Vyd. 1). Portál.

Dunn, P. (2005). Postmodern Magic: The Art of Magic in the Information

Age (1st ed.). Llewellyn Publications; Library of Congress Cataloging-in-
Publication Data.

Dunn, P. (2008). Magic, power, language, symbol: A magician’s exploration

of linguistics (1st ed). Llewellyn Publications.

Eco, U., & Marmo, C. (Eds.). (1989). On the Medieval Theory of Signs (S.
Kelly, Trans.). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Frater V฀D฀. (2010). Praktická Sigilická Magie. Vodnář.

Gvoždiak, V. (2014). Základy sémiotiky I (1st ed.). Univerzita Palackého v

Olomouci.

Hirschová, M. (2017). Explicitní performativní formule | Nový encyklopedický

slovník češtiny. https://www.czechency.org/slovnik/explicitní performativní
formule

Saussure, F. de, Bally, C., Sechehaye, A., De Mauro, T., Čermák, F., &
Riedlingera, A. (2007). Kurs obecné lingvistiky (3rd ed.). Academia.

Semetsky, I. (1998). Tarot Semiotics as Cartography of Events. Semiotics, 38–

51. https://www.academia.edu/5690797/Tarot_semiotics_as_cartography_of_events

Semetsky, I. (2009). Reading signs: Semiotics and depth psychology. Semiot-

ica, 2009(176-1/4). https://www.academia.edu/1803031/Reading_signs_Semiotics_and_depth_

Semetsky, I. (2012). Tarot: Knowing the Self, Others, and Nature. AIEM Asso-

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0

6
 ciation of Researchers of Esotericism and Mysticism, 2012. https://www.academia.edu/2494527/T
paper

Semetsky, I. (2014). The visual semiotics of Tarot images: A sociocultural

perspective. In Visual Communication (pp. 173–193). De Gryuter Mouton.
https://www.academia.edu/4923488/The_visual_semiotics_of_Tarot_images_a_sociocultural

Academia Letters preprint.

©2022 by the author – Open Access – Distributed under CC BY 4.0