Goetic "Demons"
-
Actually, I choose an electron because it does not have that many attributes involved in its description.
I could have easily said,
A human behaves only like a human when observed as a human.Going back to the electron....
You can say that, when observed, an electron is a negative particle.
Sure, it is useful in talking about an electron. But the statement never tells you anything about what the electron actually is. Science can only tell you what an "electron" is most like to do in given circumstances, not what or why it does what it does.
Also, how do you know an electron acts like an electron when you are not observing it?
Another example:
Me and you could go out to eat dinner. Sitting at the table, I eat my meal with a fork and knife.
Yet, when I am at home, by myself I will eat with just my bare hands. How would you know that by observation?The heart of that matter is, you are getting tied up in the language. The mystical gobbbledy-gook is just as pertinent as your scientific balderdash.
-
Actually what I am saying is bordering on the Copenhagen interpretation. That is a thing has no existence except when it is observed.
Or rather, there is no thing at all, only patterns of phenomena' which our minds link together, under a logically constructed "entity", which we label with a name to discern one entity from another.
I border on that but deviate slightly, in that I am not saying nothing exists other than mental phenomena. I am saying that the cause of those mental phenomena do exist in some way, but the entities we encounter are constructed models. They are structurally analogous changes in the brain, that represent, but are not the actual events that cause those changes.
Thus, we inhabit personal worlds of sensory data, but everyone is in his one subjective world of constructed symbols. The REAL world contains all subjective worlds and the actual substance which is the cause of the mental phenomena. Including the physical brain which which changes in response to physical interactions and is the source of all metal phenomena and the whose subjective world.
Where we draw the lines and create entities is a matter of personal choice to a degree. Retraining the brain, changes the way we group phenomena into entities.
A river is always new water and made of countless drops, but we call it one river. A human being is countless many different events in out perception, but we say it is one man.
Why then should we not discern a string of synchronicity as having a common source, and developing a language to communicate with said entity. Say a pendulumn or lending our own inner voice to it?
I am not so much saying spirits are real, as that normal phenomena is not as real as it seems. Thus Spirits and human beings are closer to the same order of phenomena.
-
Thanks for all the golden material (to this observer) in this thread, especially Froclown!
I think an important thing to point out here that either I or you missed is that a phenomenon's authentic value by observation will be determined by how far into the fabric of the reality of the entity/coagulate-of-information observing it, rather than defining it all in connection to something (holistic/?)objective.
-
Alright, I agree with most of what you are saying. It just seems we are drawing a different conclusion. Though I do not like the Copenhagen interpretation - I prefer to think things are not 'manifested' when unobserved (as in, lacking 'physical' substance).
The problem ( I think) is not to get tied up in the idea that they "exist on another plane of reality." That is just something to help you, as magick is allegorical in nature. You are taking something that is a subjective mental phenomenon and objectifying it in order to bring about the ability to observe and interact.
So, whether world W exists or not is redundant. For the sake of ritual R, you put yourself in the mental state of world W existing, where in is contained entity E that is separate and distinct from you. That established, ritual R then allows you to objectify entity E and place them in the triangle so that you can subject it to observation.
By saying, during ritual R such an such activity occurs in the brain, to me, is no different than saying during ritual R entity E is evoked from world W.
In the end, even the changes in your brain are nothing more than mental phenomenon.
-
Like with all magick ritual, the mind in mixed with external phenomena, 5=6.
But the whole reason behind my version in that in allows for scientific study as Goetic evokations, via PET scans, EEG scans, MRI, etc.
Also the information we get from correlating neurological data with the ritual can provide an understanding of how the Sigil relates to the result, and thereby provide a method by which more effective sigils can be created.
It can also show what sort of gestures, cognitive processes, and other such ritual elements are most effective, including drugs which may enhance the effects, specific to the spirit evoked.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Some people prefer to use "seers" during the evocation, while others prefer to do the seeing themselves. The former provides the opporunity for independent verification via description and answers to specific questions. (Unless the seer has the goetia by heart.) The fact that seers can be used throws a kink in some of what has been said.
It might also be important to remember:
Scientist operate in a process of peer review, under which results must be independently verified many times. This process is what gives the results of modern science credence. Scientist who lie don't get far. (Unless they work for a lobbyist
)The study of quantum mechanics involves independent verification of quantifiable data. It has no real bearing on anything else.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@jlpugh said
"
Some people prefer to use "seers" during the evocation, while others prefer to do the seeing themselves. The former provides the opporunity for independent verification via description and answers to specific questions. (Unless the seer has the goetia by heart.) The fact that seers can be used throws a kink in some of what has been said.
"That was not something I was aware of.
As for PET , EEG, MRIs etcetera : I do not see that really assisting in anyway. I could be wrong, not going to know until it is done.
Though I would be interested in seeing how this works out :
@froclown said
"
Also the information we get from correlating neurological data with the ritual can provide an understanding of how the Sigil relates to the result
" -
93,
Froclown wrote:
"But the whole reason behind my version in that in allows for scientific study as Goetic evokations, via PET scans, EEG scans, MRI, etc.
Also the information we get from correlating neurological data with the ritual can provide an understanding of how the Sigil relates to the result, and thereby provide a method by which more effective sigils can be created. "
I cannot imagine how this could be worked in practice. Magick requires concentration, not the distraction of an array of sensors on the outside of one's head.
Also, if data could be gathered in this way, it would only show information related to the actions and psychological responses of the magician. You might believe this would offer a reasonably complete picture of what was happening in the ceremony, but I can't follow you in that. There are subtle effects and synchronicities arising from any good ritual (assuming a ritual was a good one with the aforementioned headgear or PET scanner or whatever involved), and none of those would be measured.
Assuming such things are even measurable.
93 93/93
EM -
@jlpugh said
"Scientist operate in a process of peer review, under which results must be independently verified many times. This process is what gives the results of modern science credence. Scientist who lie don't get far. (Unless they work for a lobbyist
)"Modern science's credence is limited to a segment of society willing to accept its fundamental premises (which is not--for better or worse--100%). This includes the notion that independent verification of results is somehow meaningful. Ever see a great stage magician? The audience's limited perspective skews their perception of causality. The same can be said of science, religion, and mysticism and their perception of causality in the universe. Science tries to get closer to the stage and crane its neck for a better view, mysticism tries to mimic its observations, and religion runs out to the street to tell everyone they know about the show. Magick relies on all three (learn, practice, demonstrate).
-
synchronicity would seem to be a case of Cognitive dissonance, which is a subject for cognitive neuroscience.
subtle effects, would be changes in attention, cognitive style, affect, perceptual priority, syntactic processing, semantic valuations, etc.
Which are also the subject of nueroscience.
Any correlations between Neurological changes and actual changes in environmental factors, ambient temperature, electrical charge, radiation, etc. Is a task for physicists, changes in heart rate, breathing, metabolism, etc the task of biologists.
Certainly a team of these can be employed.
As far as large arrays go, technology has advanced to the point that a simple shower cap like array, could record the EEG data, and other data can be recorded with simple devices and read on a larger one. Arrays of heat and light sensors in the room can add environmental data.
If for example one can cause the room to fill with a blue light, bright enough to read the ritual by, then the video should pick it up.
And it would be wise to do a blind test so that the magician does not know which if any sensors are present, and a double blind would be to not let the scientist know what the ritual is meant to do.
If the equipment in particularly bulky just make it part of the ritual, as if the robe and wand are not bulky and cumbersome, from time to time.
I think a silly hat may be less distracting that Abramelin oil burning bright upon ones brow and dripping into the eyes.The feedback info would directly benefit brain-computer protocol developments
-
The Mechanics of the Facial Reflection-Distortion Technique
R. Eugene Laughlin
The visual effects associated with this evocative magick (or scrying) technique take advantage of a little eye physiology and the mechanics of perception. First, we learn to stare for extended periods without blinking. This causes classic eye-strain, which means that the muscles of the eye are overworked, just as any muscle in your body can be overworked.
The most critical muscles of interest here are the tiny ciliary muscles that control lens accommodation. When these muscles become strained it becomes increasingly difficult to focus the eye and attain a sharp visual image. For dark mirror scrying, sharp vision of the mirror surface prevents the desired visual effects from happening, or will end ongoing visual effects if attained at some point during a working. So we intentionally strain the ciliary muscles to make sharp focus less likely.
Another eye-specific operative is more difficult to explain: rhodopsin, or visual purple. I won't attempt a full explanation here. The short version is that rhodopsin is involved in transducing the very few photons that hit the retina under very low-light levels. In other words, the rhodopsin system is designed to make the most of the very little visual information we get in very dim light by amplifying the signal sent into our perceptual machinery. Because we're doing dark mirror work in an extremely dim environment, we're exploiting the rhodopsin system for all it's worth.
Perception tends to be experienced internally as a smooth and continuous representation of the environment, but in reality the neural structures involved in perception receive input in small samples or snapshots, with real gaps of a couple of milliseconds in the information coming in from the environment. It doesn't seem like an efficient system at first flush, until you realize that the most important function of perception is to detect changes in the environment. For that function, it's easier to compare snapshot to snapshot than it is to monitor a continuous stream.
So what we experience as a perception of the environment is really an internal reconstruction based on the samples we get and what's "most likely to be there" given the most recent samples and our general history of experience. In other words, rather than always having a faithful representation of the environment, perception tends to be a probabilistic affair. This is one of the reasons we are prone to various perceptual illusions. Previous experience and the quality of current sensory input interact to produce the most likely precept.
Now we can combine these factors (along with the hand-held candles) into an explanation of how dark mirror scrying works on a mundane level. First we use a mirror that gives us a dim, non-distinct reflection, and we strain the eye muscles to prevent sharp focus, which degrades the visual image further. Then we make the environment extremely dim, so that the dim and degraded image that hits the eye will be maximally amplified by the rhodopsin system. So what's actually reaching our perceptual machinery at this point is a strong signal of a much distorted image in the general shape of a face, probably scarcely recognizable as our own face.
Remember that we said that perception works by filling in the real gaps in the actual sensory information coming in with probabilistic representations based on past experience, and that the system is tuned specifically to detect changes. The hand-held candles provide a constantly changing image, because no matter how we try, we cannot hold our hands perfectly still. Our head will be weaving around a bit too, adding to a continually shifting image.
All of the pieces are in place now. We have a highly degraded but also highly amplified signal coming into our perceptual machinery; the image is constantly undergoing subtle changes in form, causing the perceptual mechanisms to work overtime to update the representation it builds.
The most common report under these conditions is something of a monster-like face, though the reasons for this are not perfectly. What is clear is that the perceptual machinery is doing the best it can with what's its getting. Once the image begins to morph, it becomes a matter of preparation, skill, and will to use the resulting image as a functional magical tool, but that is beyond the scope of a mechanical discussion.
-
93
"And it would be wise to do a blind test so that the magician does not know which if any sensors are present, and a double blind would be to not let the scientist know what the ritual is meant to do. "
Now we are doing controlled tests of magical invocation and evocation? I find such a notion fundamentally delusional.
Objective study of subjective experience and spiritual evolution may seem like a very tempting and reassuring idea, but it goes utterly against the basic premises of magick, which is a spiritual practice to be used to lead us to wild freedom, not to reams of laboratory data.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@jw said
"Modern science's credence is limited to a segment of society willing to accept its fundamental premises (which is not--for better or worse--100%). This includes the notion that independent verification of results is somehow meaningful. "
I love the analogy that follows. I don't want to muck it up by making a response in its terms. Also, I don't want to get too far off the topic of goetic demons.
You implied earlier in this thread that scientists' error is a cause for distrusting the scientific method. The method must be distinguished from the resulting theories of science. The method is only as powerful as the number and degree to which variables can be controlled. Independent verification is just a way of controlling another variable. (human error.)Obviously, science is tied to physical factors, and doesn't get to any underlying "truthiness" about a thing or process. However, when applied to the right (limited) subject matter, it represents a kind of knowledge independent of one's "belief" on the matter. The resulting theories of science are all about physcial phenomena, and completely lose their meaning when applied elsewhere. (Sorry string theorists.)
I could just as easily make a correlation between the theory of evolution and goetic demons, saying that they change over time and such. However, this idea only correlates to the theory of evolution. I've just done a little bait and switch: the theory of evolution being nearly airtight to the subject matter to which it applies, but goetic demons having no DNA and no opportunity for random mutation. My theory just sounds good because the idea already exists in a powerful form. But the reason that it is powerful totally rests on the results of specific experiments. If it did not, the theory of evolution would have been discarded long ago, and we proabably wouldn't even know about it to use it in a correlative sense.
The theories of science, thankfully, involve subject matter that has controllable variables, because such are the subjects choosen by scientists. When extrapolated beyond this, they completely loose their power, and are just as looney as any other idea. We shouldn't confuse limitations of applicability of a method with inherent limitations of a method itself.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
ALL PHENOMENA ARE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA!
My subjective phenomena = your objective observation of my brain matter.
If I see a spirit, that vision IS the firing pattern of neural activity in my cortex.
There is absolutely no phenomena that does not reduce to physics.
-
@Froclown said
"ALL PHENOMENA ARE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA! "
No. To limit "ALL PHENOMENA" to the physical manifestation is very obtuse.
@Froclown said
"There is absolutely no phenomena that does not reduce to physics."
Physics intends to explain matter, energy and their interactions, but it is really just one way the Spirit manifests. You put the cart before the horse. All phenomena streams from Atziluth and manifests physically in Assiah.
-
How much physics do you know? How do you define physics?
Life is just a theory, with a mind that makes up patterns from the input of the senses.
If the instrument collecting the data is flawed or insufficient, the pattern is not complete, and the meaning of the pattern can be misconstrued.
There is the theory, which most of us espouse to, that the human body can be transmuted into a more finely tuned instrument, able to detect layers of energy that have been hidden from a coarse instrument.
You have better information when you can see gradations of colors .Or better gradations of sound.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
Speaking of 'hidden things' which we can not prove and yet accept on faith via deduction: neither the future or the past are observable, nor is the present outside of our direct experience, yet we have no trouble believing events in time exist or that objective phenomena expands beyond our awareness. These are deductions based on probabilities and Occam's Razor. Likewise, the basic 'stuff' of physicality is no more than probability at the most essential level of analysis.
-
Froclown:
Read about Idealism.
I suggest "Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonus" by George Berkeley.
It might help balance your obviously Materialist way of looking at things.
I am not saying Idealism is "more true" or "true while the converse is false;" Im saying its worth considering and I personally tend towards it over materialism.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
I know about Idealism, perhaps you should read Karl Marx' critique of Hegel.
The the Kantian distinction between Phenomena and Nuemena, which along with Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, was progressed by Martin Heidegger into a denial of metaphysical means to exploring Ontology.
Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tracticus, in which he first develops logical positivism, and Thomas Khun (a student of Heideggers ontology) who developed the notion of paradigm change within the philosophy of science.
Further we have the postmodernist (deconstructionist like Lecan and Dierda), who attempted to defeat Logical positivism with Goedelian statements and such, only to find Neo-positiveism rise from the ashes.
And it is along the same vein of these Neo-positivists that I set my bearings.
matter and entities are logical constructs this is true, but they are structurally similar to that which the represent, even though subject to malleability and distortion.
On the nature of semantic constructs and structural similarity, see Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity.
Perhaps once you start to digest that you can understand clearly Crowley's 0=2 ontology, which is really an exposition on the Theravada Buddhist's state of nirvana. (an epistemic state, rather that an ontological one)
And look close at the intro to the Goetia, where Crowley explains the nature of spirits, in terms no scientist or skeptic will dismiss without research into the subject.
The motto af the A.'.A.'. "our method is science our aim is religion"
This passage "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them."
and finally from confessions, Crowley an the Gnostic mass:
I resolved that my Ritual should celebrate the sublimity of the operation of universal forces without introducing disputable metaphysical theories. I would neither make nor imply any statement about nature which would not be endorsed by the most materialistic man of science. On the surface this may sound difficult; but in practice I found it perfectly simple to combine the most rigidly rational conceptions of phenomena with the most exalted and enthusiastic celebration of their sublimity.so, it seems that magic and mysticism can very well be expressed scientifically, without any element of faith in bazaar entities or abstract, poetic, allegorical, or otherwise unfamiliar metaphysics. As such, I fail to see of what use it is to continue the use of fairy tales, which have little to no practical ability for progression. It seems like continuing to use roman numerals, which are useless for advanced mathematic, for aesthetic reasons.