Magick as a test for thelema
-
Science is a method. The word itself is very frequently conflated with the word "materialism". One ought be rigorously scientific in one's working, but should not expect to prove an operation of Yetzirah to a materialist bumbling around Assiah and denying anything that cannot be touched.
-
@zeph said
"Science is a method. The word itself is very frequently conflated with the word "materialism". One ought be rigorously scientific in one's working, but should not expect to prove an operation of Yetzirah to a materialist bumbling around Assiah and denying anything that cannot be touched."
I wish and hope I could someday learn to be as clear. THANK YOU ZEPH! So very well said.
-
Ive seen science use vague terms..
Everything we can get a handle on and measure about the universe makes up about 5% of whats going on, for the rest, the mystery continues.
Ok i concede straight away that scientists/theoretical physicists dont automatically say.. "oh we cant explain it so it must be goblins".. Though ive seen terms used such as 'dark energy' that eventually had to be shelved as calculations showed that its actually quite difficult to arrive at a conclusion that is that bad... so the mystery continues..
Another used is 'quintessence'.. ok so now its like the 5th element of the Greek philosophers. well ok, if 'quintessence is the answer we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists... So the mystery continues. -
@Los said
"I feel very, very confident on the basis of a whole lot of evidence -- including my own personal experience but certainly not limited to it -- that these sorts of "beings" are entirely make believe."
Thanks for the thorough answer!
I haven't had the experiences you have had. And it seems to me that you are trying to discourage beginners like me from even trying this stuff out or evaluating the results objectively. I mean, if you go into it with the conclusion that it's all bunk, I think this would alter the effectiveness of an operation--dismissing even the possibility of magick would be self-fulfilliing.
As for your conclusion that it's all make believe, I intentionally choose not to go there. I see no need, nor valid basis, to decide for myself whether spirits invoked through magickal operations are separate from the operant or a component of his/her own psyche. As I see it, it doesn't really matter. But then, my views about the psyche's vast potential and about our limitless capability for integrating with the universe and creating our own reality are sufficiently grandiose that the distinction between "real" and "make believe" in this context would be immaterial.
So until I discover for myself that magick doesn't work, I choose to believe it could, and interpret my experience with this possibility in mind. Seems to me this is consistent with the method of science, and from what you've shared, the same approach you followed to arrive at your present views.
-
@David S said
" it seems to me that you are trying to discourage beginners like me from even trying this stuff out or evaluating the results objectively."
I'm just trying to have a conversation about conclusions. I'm certainly not attempting to discourage anyone from engaging in any kind of practice.
"I see no need, nor valid basis, to decide for myself whether spirits invoked through magical operations are separate from the operant or a component of his/her own psyche. As I see it, it doesn't really matter."
If you seriously think this, then you have no reason to participate in a discussion about it. But more to the point, I think you'd be in the extreme minority of people in thinking that it "doesn't really matter" whether you're just imagining stuff or whether there actually are goblins on some other plane that you're really talking to.
The implications for humanity and for our knowledge of the universe are vastly different, not to mention the implications for intelligent practice of Thelema.
-
Another perspective is that it's important for a student to be able to entertain an idea, or let it go, as it's useful to the student.
Sent from my phone
-
@David S said
"I haven't had the experiences you have had. And it seems to me that you are trying to discourage beginners like me from even trying this stuff out or evaluating the results objectively. I mean, if you go into it with the conclusion that it's all bunk, I think this would alter the effectiveness of an operation--dismissing even the possibility of magick would be self-fulfilliing. "
I would consider the advice Los is offering to be very good for beginners. I would discourage anyone from getting into magic until they have been able to sort out and reconcile with the fact that demons and angels and god don't exist in the sense that we usually assume them to.
" But then, my views about the psyche's vast potential and about our limitless capability for integrating with the universe and creating our own reality are sufficiently grandiose that the distinction between "real" and "make believe" in this context would be immaterial. "
Just as long as you understand your views are not supported by evidence, and that they are just your views. You can believe what ever you want, no matter how much it flies in the face of facts and observable data. Just don't expect everyone to go along with it.
"So until I discover for myself that magick doesn't work, I choose to believe it could, and interpret my experience with this possibility in mind. Seems to me this is consistent with the method of science, and from what you've shared, the same approach you followed to arrive at your present views."
Your willingness to believe in this stuff might actually compromise your ability to draw objective conclusions about things. You admit to being a beginner with out much experience, so right now your willingness to believe in it isn't based on evidence or even experience. You just want to believe it. That could make you biased when it comes to reporting accurately on the results of your experiments, don't you see that?
-
We are all biased, choia. We all have our preferences for what we look at and what we deny. Athiests *choose *to see no god; theists *choose *to find god all around. Neither can prove their case. Herodotus tells it one way; Thucydides another. Both make history.
In all of the quasi-scientific talk I hear from you, there's a complete disregard of the poetic, lyrical, narrative mythos of which our understanding and awareness are composed. We aren't one-celled organisms being prodded by a single electrode. We are complex beings of inexplicable consciousness who interpret and re-frame experiences all of the time, infusing them with meaning and significance as we move through the infinite stimuli of our lives.
Sure, there's a problem if you think you can fly and go jump from a tall building or if you won't send your kid to a doctor because you think you can pray her ruptured appendix together. But there is also real danger in not admitting the extent of the unknown, and in not being open to the inexplicable.
The scientism you peddle interjects bias as a integral part of the method--limiting the number of variables and constraining the measured experience so that only a manageable number of conclusions can be drawn. Beyond this, there is everything else. Beyond your technique of awareness, there is causality. And outside the reach of your methods, there is creativity, appreciation, beauty, joy, love, connection, happiness, sadness, misery, despair, desire, longing and the whole gamut of human experience. These, I think, are the real grist and stuff of life. Not just the facts (and not just neurons firing). It's not just what happens. It's what you make of it that creates (or, rather, reveals) the truth.
And while I applaud scientists for making cell phones and hybrid engines, I think magick has better chance than your "just the facts ma'am," pseudo-science of revealing some of the most important unknowns. I see that as its purpose, to expose me to the world and the world to me. And until I've practiced a whole lot of it, I don't think I'm in any position to critique or demean those who have.
-
@David S said
"Athiests *choose *to see no god; theists *choose *to find god all around."
No, this isn't true. At least, not in the sense of simple choice: I certainly didn't start by not believing in gods or magic, and I didn't want to find that there was no compelling evidence for the existence of these things. But when I set aside my individual bias and looked at the world objectively and as broadly as possible (examining as much evidence as I could gather), that was the conclusion. That's the whole point of impartially investigating something: it doesn't matter what you want or what you would choose...the only thing that matters is where the evidence points and what is supportable by evidence.
"In all of the quasi-scientific talk I hear from you, there's a complete disregard of the poetic, lyrical, narrative mythos of which our understanding and awareness are composed."
You don't find chioa khan or myself on here talking about poetry because we're both interested, when dealing with the factual claims that are under discussion in these threads, in talking about factual claims.
If you're really dying to see me talk about poetry, go over to my blog, where I periodically close read poetry and other kinds of literature.
"The scientism you peddle"
"Scientism" is a dumb word that describes the position of neither myself nor (I suspect) chioa khan.
"interjects bias as a integral part of the method--limiting the number of variables and constraining the measured experience so that only a manageable number of conclusions can be drawn."
In pursuing questions of fact, we have to limit ourselves to what we can demonstrate. If something is not capable of being demonstrated, then nobody has any valid grounds for thinking that it exists. If you call it "bias" to be biased in favor of what we can demonstrate in discussions of factual claims, then I'm happy to be biased in that sense.
"And outside the reach of your methods, there is creativity, appreciation, beauty, joy, love, connection, happiness, sadness, misery, despair, desire, longing and the whole gamut of human experience. These, I think, are the real grist and stuff of life."
I agree. And if you'd like to start a thread on the subjective experiences of one of those things, then maybe we can talk about it. But if we're having a conversation about what's what -- as we're doing on this and other threads -- then we can't use our emotions to make valid claims about facts.
"I think magick has better chance than your "just the facts ma'am," pseudo-science of revealing some of the most important unknowns."
Depends on what you mean. If by "most important unknowns" you're talking about various emotions, then I agree that magic and other kinds of performance art are often vastly better than objective inquiry for stimulating the emotions. If by "most important unknowns" you're talking about factual claims, then you're wrong, for the simple fact that emotions and feelings aren't capable of settling questions of fact.
-
The Wikipedia definition for "scientism" addresses exactly what you guys promote:
"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable."
-
@David S said
"The Wikipedia definition for "scientism" addresses exactly what you guys promote:
"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam and Tzvetan Todorov to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable."
"Excellent and true, David, but let me point out that since the term is used "usually pejoratively" and "implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism," it is a word that has "emotional loading" for Los and others like him; meaning, it irks them to hear/read the word applied to them, it influences them to imagine your intent in using such a word, and they likely respond inaccurately to it (which serves to irk them more so).
-
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of these viewpoints then.
Since I have been earnestly practicing Magick,in fact from the point about 6 months before Becoming affiliated with a Magickal Order I have noticed positive changes in my life. One is that I am now no-longer stuck in a restrictive world-view where I do what others thing is best, but instead only follow my own lights. Another is that as a result of this new-found attitude I am well on the way towards achieving life-goals (My Will, if you like) that until this time were little more than fantasies.
I have scientific training (At university now actually, fulfilling one aspect of my Will) and I know that Correlation is not Causation; but these two things happening around the same time, leave me to surmise that they emerge from the same well-spring of creativity. This leads me to the conclusion that although Magick is certainly not what I might have liked to think in my wiccan days (long ago thankfully), the practice of living according to Thelemic standards and doing magickal/meditative work has been a positive attitude in my life.
In theory all of these arguments are very interesting, they give the intellect something to wrestle with, and I understand that some people need to wrestle. I'm more interested in results to be honest, and whether other people say my methods are impossible or not is irrelevant; I am where I am today because of the changes wrought in my life through magick.
I'm sure there was a cliche about success that fits my point of view nicely
-
@Takamba said
"Excellent and true, David, but let me point out that since the term is used "usually pejoratively" and "implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism," it is a word that has "emotional loading" for Los and others like him; meaning, it irks them to hear/read the word applied to them, it influences them to imagine your intent in using such a word, and they likely respond inaccurately to it (which serves to irk them more so)."
To imagine my (invisible) intent would be "puerile stupidity," "profoundly stupid," "utterly and completely stupid," "just dumb," and a "self-evidently stupid interpretation."
-
@David S said
"
@Takamba said
"Excellent and true, David, but let me point out that since the term is used "usually pejoratively" and "implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism," it is a word that has "emotional loading" for Los and others like him; meaning, it irks them to hear/read the word applied to them, it influences them to imagine your intent in using such a word, and they likely respond inaccurately to it (which serves to irk them more so)."To imagine my (invisible) intent would be "puerile stupidity," "profoundly stupid," "utterly and completely stupid," "just dumb," and a "self-evidently stupid interpretation.""
Probably true after a fashion, but still people are often only mirrors for our own B******t.
Things get lost in translation and people base there understanding of other peoples intent based on their own internal processes; that'll happen to anyone operation below Binah, i'e. about 99.99% of the human race.
I think this is why there are so many cries for objectivity in magick, which is a big problem because so much of what we perceive, and therefore what we as magicians work on is subjective.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Los reminds me of myself when i was doing exactly the opposite thing. I tried to convince scientific psychologists that their method is "wrong", and that they should include the mystic approach to be what they claim to be... scientific.
All is true. All can be wrong. All can be useful. All is magick.
Los helped me very well in the beggining of the topic, as he hit right on the pathos that lied behind my questions. Then Jim added how to take the advice to its full potential. I did it. It worked. I already have at least four proofs in the physical world. For me it proves they were both right.
But after this worked, all the questions vanished, and were replaced again with a much better thing to deal with: my HGA and it's progressive revealing of my true will. That is my fifth proof, and the biggest one. This fifth validates the other four retro-actively.
Why? Because it may be my will, like said elsewhere, to make traditional(non scientific) "initiation" a priority and a supervising guide. I observe everytime the magick gets strong, i just feel great and happy, and everything falls into the right place naturaly. So i make a full circle and come back to the initial question of the topic.
The "al layl" sourate feels just right again. The more you come close to God, the more easy it makes you to access your true will. But it reminds me also that saying this implies it is no possible to access true will without doing the black phase of alchemy. And whenever the mirror gets dirty, it doesnt reflect God properly. You must clean it regularly.
So it appears the more you advance into the path, the more you need the alchemical tools to work strong, precise and fast. Because any disturbance can have greater impact. Also, i really feel again magick is a good test of will for me. When i'm on the right path, i just do magick, i feel the need to do it, and it feels good doing it. When i'm not, i let it go and it lets me go.
So it makes true again the claim that "i need an anchor" to make magick work. But it is true only when i feel right(so the anchor does not moves from its proper place), and only because it is my will to do so. It is also my will to identify with Crowley, there's nothing wrong about this.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Takamba said
"Excellent and true, David, but let me point out that since the term is used "usually pejoratively" and "implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism," it is a word that has "emotional loading" for Los and others like him; meaning, it irks them to hear/read the word applied to them, it influences them to imagine your intent in using such a word, and they likely respond inaccurately to it (which serves to irk them more so)."
Indeed the term irks me, but not for the reason that it’s used in a pejorative way or that I can know or even care what your intent is…it irks me because it is an inaccurate descriptor of my position:
-I don’t think the scientific method has “universal applicability.” There are obviously areas in which science and, more broadly, the entire technique of evidence-based inquiry are useless, including in doing creative work, close reading poetry (as I do on my blog), admiring art, actually performing magical ritual, etc.
-I don’t agree that the science is the only source of factual truth (although I do agree that evidence-based inquiry – broader than formal science – is the only consistently-reliable method of evaluating factual clams).
-I don’t agree that science is the only source of truth about “man,” if we define “truth” to include revelations about values that most humans share in common.
-I don’t agree that knowledge [of facts] is only “what is measurable,” since there are plenty of things I know that I can’t “measure,” including especially my True Will. I can detect it though, and I would say that all facts are detectable by at least someone.
So anyway, since I don’t have a “dogmatic belief in science,” nor do I think science has some kind of universal applicability, I think the term “scientism” overall gives the false impression of my position.
-
@Archaeus said
"I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of these viewpoints then."
Well, what you’re describing in your post are entirely psychological effects, and obviously magick can cause psychological effects – in fact, I argue that these psychological effects are the only thing that magick can cause.
Now psychological changes may, in turn, inspire you to make other changes in your life, but none of that is anything remotely supernatural. There’s nothing specific or special about “magick” that necessarily did the trick: it might have equally worked for you to stare into the mirror and practice positive affirmations for five minutes at the start of every day.
You note that you don’t think magick works the way you thought it did back in your “Wiccan days” (implying that you used to think it worked by some supernatural mechanism, whereby you’d, for instance, light a candle and get a “result”).
It sounds like you’re substantially in agreement with the position I’ve been presenting, and I'm not sure exactly where you would disagree with me.
-
@Los said
"
@Archaeus said
"I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of these viewpoints then."Well, what you’re describing in your post are entirely psychological effects, and obviously magick can cause psychological effects – in fact, I argue that these psychological effects are the only thing that magick can cause.
Now psychological changes may, in turn, inspire you to make other changes in your life, but none of that is anything remotely supernatural. There’s nothing specific or special about “magick” that necessarily did the trick: it might have equally worked for you to stare into the mirror and practice positive affirmations for five minutes at the start of every day.
You note that you don’t think magick works the way you thought it did back in your “Wiccan days” (implying that you used to think it worked by some supernatural mechanism, whereby you’d, for instance, light a candle and get a “result”).
It sounds like you’re substantially in agreement with the position I’ve been presenting, and I'm not sure exactly where you would disagree with me."
I'm not particularly into supernatural explanations for anything, although to be fair I can't completely discount the possibility of 'supernatural' occurrences as I've had more than a few experiences that fall into that category. In practice I tend to use ritual because of the effect it has on my psyche. If I need to appease the ruach than I can psychologize the whole process but in practice I find that a reductionist attitude is not conducive to good magick so I save analysis for afterwards. IMHO this is the fine line that a magician needs to be able to tread, being able to lose oneself in the moment, giving up the reason to immerse oneself in pure activity in order to achieve ones 'magickal' aims, while all the time knowing full well that wearing robes and chanting in a candle-lit room is completely bonkers.
That place between rationality and lunacy is where the magick happens.
