The Method of Science
-
Gnosomai, allow me to praise your post not only for the quality of your insight on the matter of analyses of experience but also in your ability to observe the emotional environment that breeds the wrong understanding of intellectual concepts (not only the concept of science and skepticism but also magick and religion).
This is the working of empathy, that can shed light not only through other people reactivity and defense mechanisms but also through or own.
-
A great deal of your statement, as was the case from Los, involves the notion of "belief" and "believing." Fortunately it really seemed to me in the context of Los's presence here at the time that it was never even hinted that anyone was "doing it wrong" or even that the practices themselves where the wrong practices. Yes, there was an indication at a time that Los was going to invent knew practices as if some of the ones in the Thelemic lexicon of practices may be non-essential or misleading; but it never did quite get there in my opinion. The core of the issue was about "believing." From the very beginning issuance of "goblins" to the very end concept of "attainment," the "debate" was about the power of believing something - and from a certain point of view, in believing in something patently false.
Several times I tried pointing out that indeed it was always about the power of believing, and not important whether the thing believed be material reality or something superior and even merely convenience; if it produced the results desired, it produced the results desired and was worth repeating to test the validity of the belief. That isn't to say that the validity of the belief was to be determined for everyone, or that it would be a belief that was going to manage results for ever; but that at the time the magician found his belief in a certain goblin or spook or point of view about his cosmology, it was producing the results desired and that others would likely have some measure of success (tweaking the belief or point of view to their own ingenium as needed) and could follow.
The argument is valid that becoming too dogmatic about these "points of view" that an individual can attain to / create / devise at will is a dangerous track. I find it ironic that Los (and those who might wish to mimic him) indeed fall into that very said trap with their belief of "attainment" to what they now dogmatically hold to as "the valid result" from the "accurate belief in non-believing."
Great post. This should be an interesting thread if it stays on its rails.
-
To be scientific, I think one has to realize that a "result" can mean one of two things - either an objective result or a subjective result. (Side note: I agree with the OP that Crowley's admonitions earnestly warning one not to attribute objective validity are specially relevant to the beginner for whom Liber E and Liber O are designed, although it's an attitude it's important to have in one's arsenal all the time too. Remember Brother Onofrio in Moonchild, a respected Brother, Adeptus Major, who was extraordinariliy good at Magick strictly so-called, yet at the same time "ready to throw the whole thing over with a horse-laugh".)
Either you only seem to be perceiving Bartzabel, or you both seem to be and really *are *perceiving Bartzabel.
But this is the same for *all *experience - essentially it doesn't matter whether it's an experience of tying your shoelaces or an experience of Bartzabel. Philosophically speaking, what one starts with out of one's own resources is simply a bunch of seemings-to-be, a bunch of appears-to-be-s. To become objective, to be rightly-callable "is-es", they need to be triangulated with other peoples' seemings, and when different peoples' seemings fit together, then that's *conventionally *what's called "objective". But even then, that's no absolute guarantee of objectivity in an ideal sense, it's just the best stab we can make at it.
However, this confirmation by others, correction by others, triangulation with others (and the mirror possibility of others' correction by *your *experiments) is what's properly called scientific.
IOW the **scientific method is a social process. For example, the Magickal Record isn't just for you, it's also for your Teacher, and for other investigators to check (to see if their experiences tally with yours).
If you remain only within your own subjective sphere, and try to attain certainty out of your own resources only (i.e. take the Cartesian starting point of "what can I know for certain, purely out of my own resources?") then you're really just playing a game of solitaire, whereas science is a game played with other entities you *already accept *exist objectively (you don't need to *prove *they exist).
In fact, all you can know for certain out of your own resources is something like, "I *seem *to exist and I *seem *to be experiencing x,y,z, and the existence or occurrence of this seeming, is all I know for certain exists". Which is pretty thin gruel. But it's unsurprising that it's thin if you look at the sense in which "seeming" or "appearance" have context in ordinary language - for seemings are always potentially open to correction and to triangulation with others ("hey, do you see what I see?"), and as I said above, its the non-contradiction of one's private seemings with others' reported seemings that conventionally warrants turning propositions expressing those seemings into propositions expressing actual existence. It's in the context of that triangulation that words like "certainty", "knowledge", "perception" actually have meaning.
(In fact, ironically, if you stick purely to the Cartesian starting point, even calling what you have a "seeming" or "appearance" (or "illusion" for that matter) isn't right, because to *meaningfully *call it a "seeming" or "appearance" would be to take the public language meaning, but in the Cartesian fly-bottle, strictly-speaking, you can't even allow yourself that meaning. So you end up with "*ungh *exists", or just an inarticulate "ungh", or just silence - why bother even saying anything?)
That turned out a bit rambly, with too many italicized words, but I hope it contains a few illuminating tidbits for somebody out there. The main thing I wanted was just to emphasise the essentially social nature of scentific knowledge. It's not solitaire (and one can't believe one is playing solitaire when one is doing science).
-
Guru,
I got what you wrote. Very well said. It made a difference for me.
Gno,
Great catch and even greater post. I checked out his post and I had a hard time determining the intention of his training and development. Wonder how things would have turned out for him if he worked inside of the confines of a "working" order like the A.'.A.'. or T.'.O.'.T. Seems like he'd do really well. But who knows. -
...And the Madness Takes Hold (Part I)
(may have spelling errors, did not look it up, written from memory)
Sung :
"Above the gemed azure is the naked splendor of Nuit
She bends in ecstasy to kiss the secret ardors of Hadit
The winged globe, the starry blue -
Are mine O-Ankh-Af-Na-Khon-Su"Let it be firstly understood:
I am a servant of the One Verse
Una Noctus Ignes Veritas
Epsilon Roe Sigma EpsilonNow,
Let it be known:
ALL GODS ARE TRUTH
All men are PROPHETS
All women the GODDESSTo HER all power is given
From HIM issues forth the WORDAnd I am but a little bird
Floating on the AIR there heard -
Thanks everyone! I was really unsure of the value in dredging up certain matters but I'm glad to see that at least this aspect of things resonates beyond just myself.
It's also interesting to note that, in his response over on his blog, Los can't quite come at the question head on but once again falls into his almost rote response of moving the goalposts in order to reframe the debate under his terms. I'm going to have to drop a quick reply to him over there since he continues to proudly fly his "de facto ban" flag but, I have to say, the more I look at his way of thinking and method of argument, the more I see the devolution from unscientific practice to rigid materialist fundamentalism.
Synchronistically, this video just flew across my Facebook feed this morning. Really great talk and right on point for what the actual "Method of Science" is and why it's important not to simply rest on the facts that are currently known.
-
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
-
-
Excerpt of the editorial by Aleister Crowley in The Equinox No. 2)
"It is four hundred and seventy-seven years since the trouble in the Monastery. There were assembled many holy men from every part of the civilised world, learned doctors, princes of the Church, bishops, abbots, deans, all the wisdom of the world; for the Question was important – how many teeth were there in a horse’s mouth.
For many days the debate swung this way and that, as Father was quoted against Father, Gospel against Epistle, Psalm against Proverb; and the summer being hot, and the shade of the monastery gardens pleasant, a young monk wearied of the discussion, and rising presumptuously among those reverend men, impudently proposed that they should examine the mouth of a horse and settle the question.
Now, there was no precedent for so bold a method, and we are not to be surprised that those holy men arose right wrathfully and fell upon the youth and beat him sore.
Having further immured him in a solitary cell, they resumed debate; but ultimately “in the grievous dearth of theological and historical opinion” declared the problem insoluble, an everlasting mystery by the Will of God.
To-day, their successors adopt the same principles with regard to that darkest of horses, the A.'.A.'. They have not only refused to open our mouths, but have even refused to look into them when we ourselves have gone to the length of opening them wide before them.
However, there have been others. Whether we were too confident or they too easily discouraged is a question unnecessary to discuss. We hoped to sever at one blow their bonds; at least we should have loosened them. But their struggle, which should have aided our efforts, seemed to them too arduous. They have been perplexed rather than illumined by the light which we flashed upon them; and even if it showed a road, gave no sufficient reason why it should be followed.
Of such we humbly crave the pardon; and in answer to a seemingly widespread desire to know if we mean anything, and if so, What? we request those who would know the Truth of Scientific Illuminism to look into the open mouth of its doctrine, to follow its simple teachings step by step, and not to turn their backs on it and, walking in the opposite direction, declare so simple a problem to be an everlasting mystery.
We are therefore not concerned with those who have not examined our doctrine of sceptical Theurgy, or scientific illuminism, or that which lies beyond. Let them examine without prejudice.
Some, too, have raised weapons against us, thinking to hurt us. But malice is only the result of ignorance; let them examine us, and they will love us. The sword is not yet forged that can divide him whose helmet is Truth. Nor is the arrow yet fledged that will pierce the flesh of one who is clothed in the glittering armour of mirth. So here, and now, and with us; he who climbs the Mountain we point out to him, and which we have climbed; he who journeys by the chart we offer to him, and which we have followed, on his return will come in unto us as one who has authority; for he alone who has climbed the summit can speak with truth of those things that from there are to be seen, for HE KNOWS. But he who stands afar off, and jests, saying: “It is not a Mountain, it is a cloud; it is not a cloud, it is a shadow; it is not a shadow, it is an illusion; it is not an illusion, it is indeed nothing at all!” – who but a fool will heed him? for not having journeyed one step, HE KNOWS NOT concerning those things of which he speaks."
-
Continuing:
"1. We perceive in the sensible world, Sorrow. Ultimately that is; we admit the Existence of a Problem requiring solution.
- We accept the proofs of Hume, Kant, Herbert Spencer, Fuller, and others of this thesis:
The Ratiocinative Faculty or Reason of Man contains in its essential nature an element of self-contradiction.
- Following on this, we say:
If any resolution there be of these two problems, the Vanity of Life and the Vanity of Thought, it must be in the attainment of a Consciousness which transcends both of them. Let us call this supernormal consciousness, or, for want of a better name, “Spiritual Experience.”
-
Faith has been proposed as a remedy. But we perceive many incompatible forms of Faith founded on Authority – The Vedas, The Qurán, The Bible; Buddha, Christ, Joseph Smith. To choose between them we must resort to reason, already shown to be a fallacious guide.
-
There is only one Rock which Scepticism cannot shake; the Rock of Experience.
-
We have therefore endeavoured to eliminate from the conditions of acquiring Spiritual Experience its dogmatic, theological, accidental, climatic and other inessential elements.
-
We require the employment of a strictly scientific method. The mind of the seeker must be unbiased; all prejudice and other sources of error must be perceived as such and extirpated.
-
We have therefore devised a Syncretic-Eclectic Method combining the essentials of all methods, rejecting all their trammels, to attack the Problem, through exact experiments and not by guesses.
-
For each pupil we recommend a different method (in detail) suited to his needs; just as a physician prescribes the medicine proper to each particular patient.
-
We further believe that the Consummation of Spiritual Experience is reflected into the spheres of intellect and action as Genius, so that by taking an ordinary man we can by training produce a Master.
This thesis requires proof: we hope to supply such proof by producing Genius to order."
-
Continuing further:
"1. There is no hope in physical life, since death of the individual, the race, and ultimately the planet, ends all.
-
There is no hope in reason, since it contradicts itself, and is in any case no more than a reflection upon the facts of physical life.
-
What hope there may be in Investigation of the physical facts of Nature on Scientific lines is already actively sought after by a powerful and well-organized body of men of perfect probity and high capacity.
-
There is no hope in Faith, for there are many warring Faiths, all equally positive.
-
The adepts of Spiritual Experience promise us wonderful things, the Perception of Truth, and the Conquest of Sorrow, and there is enough unity in their method to make an Eclectic System possible.
-
We are determined to investigate this matter most thoroughly on Scientific lines."
-
-
Continuing No. 3
"1. We are Mystics, ever eagerly seeking a solution of unpleasant facts.
-
We are Men of Science, ever eagerly acquiring pertinent facts.
-
We are Sceptics, ever eagerly examining those facts.
-
We are Philosophers, ever eagerly classifying and co-ordinating those well-criticised facts.
-
We are Epicureans, ever eagerly enjoying the unification of those facts.
-
We are Philanthropists ever eagerly transmitting our knowledge of those facts to others.
-
Further, we are Syncretists, taking truth from all systems, ancient and modern; and Eclectics, ruthlessly discarding the inessential factors in any one system, however perfect."
-
-
Continuing No. 4:
"1. Faith, Life, Philosophy have failed.
-
Science is already established.
-
Mysticism, being based on pure experience, is always a vital force; but owing to the lack of trained observation, has always been a mass of error. Spiritual Experience, interpreted in the terms of Intellect, is distorted; just as sunrise shows the grass green and the sea blue. Both were invisible until sunrise; yet the diversity of colour is not in the sun, but in the objects on which its light falls, and their contradiction does not prove the sun to be an illusion.
-
We shall correct Mysticism (or Illuminism) by Science, and explain Science by Illuminism."
-
-
Continuing No. 5:
"1. We have one method, that of Science.
- We have one aim, that of Religion."
-
There is more. If the above isn't enough, then the rest probably wouldn't be any better. So I cut to the end:
"This, then, in one language or another, is our philosophical position. But for those who are not content with this, let it be said that there is something more behind and beyond. Among us are those who have experienced things of a nature so exalted that no words ever penned could even adumbrate them faintly. The communication of such knowledge, so far as it is at all possible, must be a personal thing; and we offer it with both hands."
-
I was going to post from Postcards to Probationers as well. It is too lengthy and others can find it.
It is quite brilliant, though.
-
I considered that as well and skipped it for the same reason. Equinox I.ii really is a treasure trove.
I chose to go with The Psychology of Hashish because there's so much good in there that I completely forgot about until a recent re-read. The title and the dry science of pt.I has always thrown me off. Oliver Haddoo is the same voice that wrote The Soldier and the Hunchback which gets recommended a lot. I really think PofH should get just as much attention.
-
Speaking of "portions of the human brain," has anyone considered that sometimes we are not, in fact, dealing with other whole-minded humans who are free to reason correctly? - and that instead, we are actually sometimes dealing with humans whose minds have been at least temporarily overthrown by a portion of their mind devoted to the defense of the rest of their sanity?
Just wondering if you've ever thought about those "portions of the human brain" and their functioning outside of a ritual evocation context.
Sometimes, when this is the case, the trick is to let them have the last word and not to continue to pry open their mental CPU.
-
"In fact consciousness itself is cerebral activity. We know this when brain surgeons prod brains with electrodes and rearrange consciousness and we know it when car accident, neurologically damaged people or brain tumour victims lose memory functionality. We also experience, " altered consciousness" when drugs affect our cerebral bio chemistry."
I was reading Mouni Sadhu's book, "Concentration" the other day, your comments here reminded me of something he wrote...
"In mentally deficient individuals, scientists have discovered different abnormalities present in the structure of their brains. On occasions surgery is used in an attempt to rectify the deficiencies of these ailing organs. Malignant tumours can also affect a man's mental abilities, as does any damage indicted on certain important centres in the brain. There have been cases where formerly brilliant and highly intelligent men have lost their powers because of physical changes in their brains, due to disease or loss of portion of their grey matter,following accidents or unsuccessful operations. In some such unfortunate cases, the persons concerned have even become hopeless idiots, lacking every trace of their former intelligence and culture.
These are facts, and in them we can find another support for the assertion that, in the ultimate
sense, the mental and astral planes are still material (although subtle) and dependent on physical matter for their manifestation. " -
One of the major purposes of achieving that highest state of unitary consciousness is that precisely because it is so simple, universal, and pure, it is only that which the human mind may imagine as something of the the form of consciousness held by pure energy, of which matter is also made, ...which energy is also the primal substance of our most simple, pure, and universal experience.
The possibility you have to respect enough to consider is that it may be more accurate to say that thoughts are an "epiphenomenon of matter," but Consciousness, which may be experienced as one in the same with Energy, just IS, whether there are thoughts or Not, even in matter.