THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,sci.skeptic From: "Nova Solo"Subject: Re: Epistemology and Magic (was A question from a beginner.) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:25:15 GMT Well, at least it's getting shorter. Sorta. nagasiva yronwode wrote in message <8qo9pm$8ps@bolt.sonic.net>... >5000925 Vom > >> It is interesting, and I'm glad to be debating the subject with >> someone for whom I have great affection and respect. > >I've stopped debating it with you. Glad you told me, otherwise I wouldn't have known. >mostly I'm attempting to >understand the points of contention so as to more completely >assimilate the conventional extentions of the hypotheses themselves. >you've thought about it enough to dismiss certain ideas, but not >enough to explain effects you apparently believe occur. That's exactly correct. These effects are ones I believe occur. I don't know whether they do or not. I don't know how full of shit I am. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that I'm toting around wheelbarrows full of steaming horse apples when it comes to this magick stuff. I willingly admit I can't explain it. I have sliced and chopped and pared things down until I have found the bare minimum of 'stuff' that I can't get rid of and still have anything happen that I can credit to something beyond coincidence. I could still be wrong. That's ok too. >I've been debating it occasionally with people for years, and this >has led me to begin taxonomizing the epistemological structures that >surround the phenomenon of magic. at some point debating between >knowledge systems becomes useless, since I'm not really trying to >convince you of the truth of it so much as see where one leaves >off and another begins. Tom seems to think that this is sophistry, >but I think of it as good philosophy and the good foundation of >scientific investigations. I don't think it's sophistry, but I think you have an antagonistic way of doing research. You don't seem to say "I'm interested because I'm collecting data", you say things like "preposterous!" While the idea being expressed might indeed BE preposterous, it's hardly going to make people want to open up and share the intimate details of their workings with you. If information-gathering is your goal, you might want to choose an approach that will make people more willing to speak freely. If it is your goal. >>Finding reality isn't a goal, it's a necessary step in the process. It's no >>different than saying that you need to know how much house you have before >>you buy paint to paint it. Or you have to know the measurement if you want >>to cut wood to fit it. This is not mystical, it's common sensical. > >not a necessary element to magic, from what I can tell. Hermetic >magic seems to set this up as an important element, but it isn't >universal. There may come a time when I choose to preface everything I say about magick with "I think", "I believe", "In my experience" or some other limiter. This is not that time. However, if you feel that this limitation is not evident, I'll consider adding a .sig so no one will get the impression that I think I know it all. I know precisely dick. I suspect a great deal. I think a good bit more. But I don't know much of anything. >>> mysticism ... *n* 1 : the experience of mystical union >>> or direct communion with ultimate reality reported >>> by mystics.... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> "Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary", >>> 1967; p. 561. >>> ---------------------------------------------- > >>mystic: adj. 1 of esoteric rites or doctines. 2. mystical. 3. >>ysterious. --n. one who professes to undergo profound spiritual experiences >>mystical: adj. 1. spiritually significant or symbolic. 2. of mystics or >>mysticism >>Webster's New World Dictionary, 1990; p. 390 > >what does the same dictionary define as "mysticism"? cf. your >definition for ---n. "one who professes to undergo profound spriitual >experiences." mysticism -- n. 1. belief in the possibility of attaining direct communication with God or knowledge of spiritual truths, as by meditation 2. obscure thinking or belief >>Hence my rejection of the term. There's nothing spiritual about it. > >even your dictionary had something spiritual, and I'd be willing to >bet that it says something about spirituality and reality in its >definition of "mysticism". I repeat. It's not mystical. It's not mystic. It's not mysticism. It's not spiritual. It's not religion. It's not godform. It's not dark mysterious hidden knowledge. It's what I consider to be a common sense approach. Why is this giving you problems? I don't understand why the inclusion of the word "spiritual" in my dictionary's definition of 'mystic' is important to you, when I'm rejecting both 'mystic' and 'spiritual' as terms applicable to the way I view magick. I get the feeling I'm missing something here. >my point is that there is more than one way to view magic, and >the convention is not at all a consensus. you're representing a >single perspective, and I'm only answering with a popular alternative. >pretending that only one is reasonable or popular is not fair to >those who are studying the subject. the testing of all this is one >aspect of talking about it, but demanding tests for every assertion >about what is traditional is ridiculous. Don't think of it as a demand. I'm genuinely curious if it'd work under test conditions. If it wouldn't, no skin off my nose. I'm not going to start capering about and crowing. If it would work, I'd be delighted. Neat! >>>> ...that's what magick is. Fooling people. > >you're making claims here. if you want to start providing some kind >of underpinning of testable knowledge, why don't you bolster your >own claims? there are certainly tests for the Stage Magic hypothesis >just as there may be for any other. I don't require it, but it seems >hyper-aggressive to respond to anyone's conjecture with "test it!" Does it? I don't mean to come across that way. I'm content to play in my sandbox and leave everyone else to their sandbox. My way is one I like. I'm secure enough that I don't need to prove to Joe Schmoe that his way doesn't work. For my own edification, it'd be neat to test out the inherent-power system. I've tried it and found it didn't work for me when the basics (see above) were removed. As I said at the beginning of this thread, if anyone else had asked, I probably wouldn't have responded. I am not, as a general rule, interested in debating which forms of magick are "real" and which aren't. For all I know, they could all be real. I just know mine works for me. >in the meantime, why bother to try to establish one perspective as >"accurate" unless you've got some investment in dogma? (I'm not primarily >talking about you here, but you and Tom seem to be holding up your end.) >I don't even mind that much the presentation of your dogma, but I'd like >to find out more about how your favoured ideas about how magic works >includes the effects (if you think that it works at all, that is, which >it is certainly reasonable for participants to reject) Is it dogma if I'm willing to chuck the lot of it and start over? Maybe it is. I try not to object to the word 'dogma' for its own sake. So many people, especially in the pagan and magickal communities, use dogma as some kind of club. If you disagree with someone, you're espousing dogma and you're a bad, bad person. Eh. Maybe. I'm willing to be a bad, bad person, too. ;> We get to wear the cool clothes. >>>so, by your assessment, how would such a poppet/doll work? >>>if Poke never knew about the doll, for example, and if >>>Tom did the spell against him, are you saying that there >>>would be some unconscious communication between them in >>>some way? I'm genuinely curious about how you flesh out >>>the metaphysics here, especially if there is no further >>>contact between Tom and Poke other than what has already >>>happened and Tom's observation of how Poke expresses >>>himself in the newsgroup (i.e. whether Tom likes it and >>>decides not to torture the doll some more :>). > >> ...Tom's belief and willpower are required to enforce a >> concept that is not otherwise active. > >where is it enforced? where is it active? if you haven't got >your magic theory worked out, how can you be so sure that >the conventional alternatives are incorrect? Tyagi, don't make this more complex than it has to be. Here. In the world. Not on the astral plane, not in the Etheric Whatever. Here. In this consensual space-time we all agree on some basic level is what we will call 'reality'. For more info, see below. >> I'm afraid I don't know the "how" of it beyond that >> unsubstantiated belief.... > >so explain your unsubstantiated belief. we deal with that all >the time here. I don't have such rigid requirements, apparently, >as Tom, who seems to want everything demonstrated to him in >a test before considering it seriously. ;> All right, but if you come back and ask how I know this is true, I'm going to smack you with the definition of "unsubstantiated belief". This is the quicky five-minute version. I'll review it a few times to make sure it says as much as it can without turning it into some kind of thesis on the subject. In the 'normal' state of 'reality', the concept of our hypothetical babydoll actually affecting Poke is not valid. It is not the commonly accepted belief, it is not the default setting. Tom's willpower and belief are required to overcome the default, to instruct the world to operate on his terms for this moment in time. This modification may only be effective in Tom's perceived reality. Perceived reality may or may not be the same as consensual reality. Subjective reality may or may not overlap objective reality. Poke may or may not 'really' be affected by Tom's manipulation of the doll. The more closely Tom phrases his desire and aims to stay within his own personal perceived subjective reality, the greater the odds are that his working will be successful because delusion is easier to achieve. To keep himself from growing heady with the rush of success, Tom should be prepared to acknowledge that this is a delusional state, and should be able to leave it behind. Otherwise, he runs the risk of being unable to accept a difference between subjective and objective realities, and he'll never manage to get beyond subjective. Plus, someone will lock him up sooner or later for your proposed 72 hours of observation. Will the spell be successful in the default reality? Maybe, maybe not. Will it be successful in Poke's reality? Maybe, maybe not. More 'maybe not' than 'maybe' if Poke is aware of the effort against him and works to counter the doll. If Poke chooses to counter with another spell, then Poke's belief in his spell may or may not outweigh both Tom's belief in Tom's spell and Poke's belief in Tom's spell. At this point, both have suspended belief in the default reality where, as anyone will tell you, magick doesn't work. It is my theory that active unbelief may be more effective than belief in a counter-spell. Active unbelief is supported by the default worldview of a few trillion people, minus those who do accept that magick works. By my ideas of magick, that would make active unbelief as directed by will as spell-belief is. I haven't had the opportunity to test this out, but it sounds way cool. If this is correct, Poke would do better to know Tom is working with a poppet, and actively mock the idea that it could be at all effective. He should seek out any hint of belief or fear that it might work, and get rid of it. If he thinks it might work, he increases the likelihood it will. And everything you read in this book could be wrong. Now, I should add I don't usually go through all this thought-process when I'm working. I just do it. Sometimes it's only my own reality that needs changing. Usually it is, actually. Y'know, things like not running out of gas too soon, or fixing traffic lights, or not getting soaked when I'm trying to get the horses to come into the barn on a rainy night. Or not run off the road when I'm driving 70 down a narrow country road when it's pouring out so I can get home to feed those same horses. Did that one tonight. Didn't crash. Was it magick? Yep. Did it actually do anything? No idea. I might have just been one lucky little bitch in a black car. Will I do the same "working" again the next time I have to drive at unsafe speeds in unsafe conditions? Damn right. >> I refuse to posit the existence of otherwise-unidentifiable >> ethers, energies, or planes of existence. > >why? is this not unreasonable on your part, in consideration >of metaphysics surrounding magic? Occam's Razor doesn't even >cut all the way to a Nihilistic nub. Show me a reason why it should exist, and I'll consider adopting it into my peculiar belief system. I don't seem to need it to function, so I don't use it. You can, if it makes you feel better. I don't mind. >> Suffice it to say that I think will and belief are both required >> to make it work. > >this is because you have seen those who did not believe try >spells and these spells failed? else what brings you to your >contentions? I used to do big, elaborate rituals. Candles, pentagrams, circles, calling guardians, special ritual tools, certain minerals, incense. But I got tired of doing it. In the interests of being lazy, I began eliminating steps. And some things still worked. Sometimes I still enjoy the pomp and ceremony, and I'll dust everything off and drag it out again. But usually, I don't bother. If I do ritual, it's because I'm feeling the need to be artistic and not practical. By the way, it might interest you to know that the same is true of house cleansing and shielding. I don't do either and I haven't found them necessary for years. >>..."The definition of a fool is someone who believes his own illusions." >>I think this isn't a bad definition of a mage, either. The trick is to >>know when to quit believing in them. > >for Stage Magic theory this makes a great deal of sense, sure. I'm not >trying to disabuse you of your favoured ideas about magic, but >maintaining that only this perspective is true seems incredibly >one-sided to me, especially if you haven't somehow demonstrated that >the alternatives are false. I know I already said this, but I'm saying it again. The Stage Magic theory is true for me. Another version may work better for someone else. This is not the only true way, but it is the only true way for me. I think I will make up that .sig for future postings. I don't like being misinterpreted, even when it's my fault by omission. Nova
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|