Do skeptics prevent magick from working in their presence?
-
@Shadow Self said
"I've been wondering if anyone thinks that skeptics cause certain feats of magick to not work when they are around. "
The expression 'feats of magick' is pretty broad, and while tenable in some areas is utterly defenseless in others, so it all comes down to specific examples.
The topic touches on an aspect of the Cairo Working that is profound, and in a roundabout way answers the question asked. Aleister Crowley stated the events of the Cairo Working occurred despite his cynicism and skepticism; if it had not been for his wife communicating to Crowley on the behalf of Aiwass, it is unlikely the Cairo Working could have occurred. It seems obvious that any effort to communicate with Crowley directly by Aiwass without using Rose as an intermediary would have failed due to his skepticism. The mindset of the skeptic creates a barrier that foils attempts at being communicated with by a god or other extraordinary beings. Case in point, Los has stated that if he ever starts hearing voices he will seek mental health treatment. If you were a god, would you attempt communicating with someone if it resulted in a belief of insanity?
One of the more interesting things Rose Crowley communicated to her husband on the behalf of Ra-Hoor-Khuit is the god was offended that Crowley had not invoked him. If gods can be offended or otherwise put off by human beings, claiming they do not exist is probably not a sound method for attempting communications with them, and likely a barrier for proving whether they exist or not.
-
@kasper81 said
"This is insane, no disrespect. The whole point of practical magick is you are breaking down levels of social control. The fact you are asking this question shows you are riddled with self-doubt per se and there is some internal flaw witch needs to be addresssed."
I disagree with this. Certainly there are significant psychological dependencies on and rigidities from and over-responsivess to expectations and other "others-derived" psychological states, and there is a mutual relationship between this and magick.
On the other and, we're not really separate or alone. We live in a context of mass (group) mind, just as much as we bring our individual "singularity," or distinct point of view. It really isn't desirable to distance oneself from mass mind except as an exercise - to gain the power to do this when you need to.
We exist in the context of each other. The orbit of any planet is determined partly by the gravitational attraction of every other planet in its system.
The question is quite a sensitive and responsive one. I would suspect an internal flaw - dysfunction in the form of deep alienation - from someone who couldn't see the legitimacy of the question. We gain enormously from being distinct, clear individuals - but only to the extent that we are distinct, clear individuals that are inherently part of a greater, connected whole.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"We gain enormously from being distinct, clear individuals - but only to the extent that we are distinct, clear individuals that are inherently part of a greater, connected whole."
I agree with this so much, but that wasn't always the case...
From the stars to the cells.
Love is a constant initiation. Happy Venus Day!
-
@kasper81 said
"ye are my chosen ones"
I just love that plural, don't you?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@kasper81 said
"ye are my chosen ones"I just love that plural, don't you?"
Not to mention that kasper could be understood to want to care not thou (at all).
-
Oh, that was the obvious part.
-
I currently live with my mom, dad, husband, 2 cats, and my grandma who is dying of dementia. I moved back in with my parents to help take care of my grandma in her final years. It has been going on four years now. No one in my family is supportive of me joining any magical orders or groups. They basically see them as places where people get taken advantage of financially and sexually. I'm also somewhat limited in the magical tools and such I can leave around as a result of the situation.
Well, it looks like my grandma will be dead within few months from the disease (she is on hospice now), so I'm not entirely sure what will be next for me, only I don't want to get too far off the path and take too many detours from my true will as people mentioned in the other thread.
I seriously doubt anyone is reading my magical diary except myself. My father (the skeptic) is not someone I would ever even feel comfortable mentioning my magical operations to. He doesn't believe in that stuff at all. He has no interest in it, like he has already formed his opinion on it and that is it.
I'm not even that detailed in my journal particularly concerning things of a sensitive nature.
Last magical operation I did that clearly worked he had gone to the opera. It was the sort of thing where the results are readily apparent even to skeptics, but to them, they would just say "oh, it makes sense, that would happen anyway, its totally coincidence that you did a magical operation beforehand.
-
You didn't mention your husband's feelings about these things. That would seem to be he most important, since it's someone you've (apparently) selected to spend the rest of your life with.
-
@Shadow Self said
"skeptics,[...] they would just say "oh, it makes sense, that would happen anyway, its totally coincidence that you did a magical operation beforehand."
I'm personally okay with that. Back in 1988 I was introduced to the I Ching and after some time getting to know it, I asked the I Ching, "What do you think of my particular brand/method/model of magick?" I got 16. Yü / Enthusiasm, which I then interpreted to mean that whether I danced or not, the effect was coming, but because I knew it was coming, I danced, or that by dancing, I made known it was coming, but in any case, I had to dance. (My particular brand of magick is dance to me, just to let you know). So if someone says, "Yeah, only natural law explains it," I ask them to explain why I danced.
-
I've often been asked by students whether magick causes the event, or the pending event motivated the magick. My usual response is the only empirical statement you can make is, "Did magick for event. Event happened." If that describes the facts, then the magick was a success.
It's rather arrogant to presume to presume causation when all you can really observe is relationship.
-
My husband pretty much shares most of my parents attitudes about groups. The magical tools or practices for him aren't an issue at all. (Although he isn't particularly interested in doing daily practices himself) I can pretty much have what I want in that department. We lived together in an apartment for a while, but we were both miserable.
When I married him, I never thought I would care this much about religion or magick.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"... the only empirical statement you can make is, "Did magick for event. Event happened." If that describes the facts, then the magick was a success.
It's rather arrogant to presume to presume causation when all you can really observe is relationship."
Strictly speaking, if one's worldview is functional, that is everything anyone can ever empirically say about any causal relationship irrelevant the topic: "Did A. B happened."
So I am not sure if to claim causation is arrogant or simply fact in such a case - if the result is statistically sufficiently significant beyond chance, that is.
Addendum @Shadow Self: It just occured to me, that the abovesaid could be a bridge between the people in your immediate surroundings sceptical of your "magick", how to convince them that it has something going for it. As the above does in and of itself not contain any claim that a sceptic could label "hoo-hoo". Even if it led them also there if they applied it consistently ...
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"the only empirical statement you can make is, "Did magick for event. Event happened." If that describes the facts, then the magick was a success.
It's rather arrogant to presume to presume causation when all you can really observe is relationship."
Describing the magick as a "success" implies causation.
-
@Shadow Self said
"Last magical operation I did that clearly worked he had gone to the opera. It was the sort of thing where the results are readily apparent even to skeptics, but to them, they would just say "oh, it makes sense, that would happen anyway, its totally coincidence that you did a magical operation beforehand."
So what makes you think that the magick actually caused anything to happen at all? As I'm sure you're aware, coincidences happen all the time, so what distinguishes this particular act from a coincidence?
-
@Los said
"
@Shadow Self said
"Last magical operation I did that clearly worked he had gone to the opera. It was the sort of thing where the results are readily apparent even to skeptics, but to them, they would just say "oh, it makes sense, that would happen anyway, its totally coincidence that you did a magical operation beforehand."So what makes you think that the magick actually caused anything to happen at all? As I'm sure you're aware, coincidences happen all the time, so what distinguishes this particular act from a coincidence?"
That relies on the part of the magical operation that the skeptic is not capable of observing. Since, the skeptic cannot observe it, the magick appears coincidental. Skeptics don't get inside your head. By their very nature, they do not experience being one with other peoples thoughts and feelings.
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"the only empirical statement you can make is, "Did magick for event. Event happened." If that describes the facts, then the magick was a success.It's rather arrogant to presume to presume causation when all you can really observe is relationship."
Describing the magick as a "success" implies causation."
The ends justify the means.
-
I see the ritual as preparing you to be open to the transformative energies of the event,
As opposed to being the direct cause -
@Jim Eshelman said
"I have a different view.
The type of skeptic you are describing isn't a neutral party but, rather, someone with a deep commitment to magick not working.
They manifest reality around them the same way that you do. Yes, their successful magical act of holding reality in place is as much a magick act as your own.
There's a simple enough test, though - which is to do your work in isolation, maintain silence about it, and give them nothing they need to resist. If your magick is real and effective, you'll get a different result."
I had to deal a lot with such people... Some of them made me believe, after years dealing with them, they got actually very "good" at this.
The first year i undertook initiation, i kept silent. But even so, they felt i was going towards a path they hate. And it made them unconsciously agressive.
The second year, i talked. This time they became openly agressive. I felt my magick was weaker after talking to them, or being around them. Consistently.
So towards the end of second year, i avoided them, for a couple of months to see what happens... My magick went powerful again. But i was not satisfied at all. Because after such training, i considered it should work (almost)the same, even with such obstacles.
So, beggining my third year of practice, i talked again, and for a year now i still speak the truth. That way, i use it as a test.
Now it finally works. I'm powerful enough to resist such attacks. But it still requires more focus than when in silence... Especially when such people are beautiful women... Great test in my opinion but may be dangerous also according to context and environement. I guess it a similar danger when dealing with black bros, except black bros are more powerful beacause of initiation?
Also it reminds me those "atheist" who actually have a HUGE and blind FAITH in the "fact"(lol) there is no god... Sick shit...