The Necronomicon
-
@Elorath said
"The interesting thing is that the Spell always Worked! Everytime!"
Oh, please. Move to a region that gets on average one or two rainfalls per year and then do this spell fifty times a year. Let's see what happens then.
-
The law of diminishing returns could work out very badly when evoking a spirit with 30 teeth. Sorry couldn't resist.
-
@Los said
"
@Elorath said
"The interesting thing is that the Spell always Worked! Everytime!"Oh, please. Move to a region that gets on average one or two rainfalls per year and then do this spell fifty times a year. Let's see what happens then."
My thought exactly.
But do it, in a place like that, during times when it's meteorologically feasible for rain. I could do rain spells every morning at dawn in Puerto Rico and succeed at least 300 times every year. I could do it every morning in Los Angeles and, no matter how great the magick, decisively fail at least 300 times every year. One would pick a December or March day when rain wasn't forecast (but conditions exist for it to happen), and give It 24 hours. (It takes at least that long for meteorological conditions to rearrange to reroute precipitation to the region.)
-
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die"
I was first introduced to the Necronomicon watching Evil Dead movie !
Then did some magick using Simon's one as a beginner, some years ago... with great results. At first i thought "beginner's luck"... Then reading various testimonies i tended to believe there are some "genuine" forces really working there. Now i think it's a mix of both and that a third element plays even more: sincerity, like was pointed out earlier.
The thing is i'm a big fan of such atmospheres, of horror in general, and the weirder the better. So it just had to work.
Anyway i find it interesting working with fictions and/or mixing fiction with "real" stuff. I'm sure there's a lot to discover and that making work together kabalah/alchemy logic with art/litterature will unveil great other mysteries and powers...
I'm sure i'll appreciate that a lot more when more advanced into the path. Be careful newbies, weird stuff tend to work to a surprising extent.
Maybe the "surprising" effect of weirdness can in itself accomplish a significant part of the work... Or at least opens doors."and the sigil of Xastur was growing bigger and bigger..." Abdul Al Hazred, Kitab Al Azif
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" I could do rain spells every morning at dawn in Puerto Rico and succeed at least 300 times every year."
Well, no, you wouldn't "succeed" at all, because -- as you're implying -- we know that it rains that often down there to begin with, and weather patterns aren't affected by "magic spells."
"One would pick a December or March day when rain wasn't forecast (but conditions exist for it to happen), and give It 24 hours. (It takes at least that long for meteorological conditions to rearrange to reroute precipitation to the region.)"
Well, what you would do is locate days on which it's feasible for rain to occur but rain isn't forecast. Then you figure out, statistically, how often that forecast is wrong on average. Then you perform a rain spell on each one of those days for a long period of time and see if your supposed "success" rate rises above chance to any statistically significant degree.
I predict that any results will be well within the normal pattern of weather and of forecast mistakes. Because you can't affect the weather by doing a rain dance.
-
You and I are on substantially the same track (I just didn't lay out all of the project parameters).
Except you'd be entering into it having already determined that it won't work, while I (having never done rain magick) would enter it not having a clue whether the particular dance was going to work.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"You and I are on substantially the same track (I just didn't lay out all of the project parameters)."
And you would also agree that until someone has performed (and repeated) this experiment and gathered sufficient evidence, a person would not be justified in accepting the claim, "Magic spells can affect the weather"?
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"You and I are on substantially the same track (I just didn't lay out all of the project parameters)."And you would also agree that until someone has performed (and repeated) this experiment and gathered sufficient evidence, a person would not be justified in accepting the claim, "Magic spells can affect the weather"?"
No, you know I don't agree with that. (You're egging me on. I'll indulge you.)
The universe is too grand. There's too much in it that's amazing and awesome and outside the ability to "figure out" or trace. There's no reason to exclude that. Instead, walk into a situation embracing your ignorance of it. \
I'd approach this wondering, "Gosh, can this spell affect the weather?" Then, depending on my level of curiosity, I'd either go find out or drop the matter. But I'm certainly not going to dispute someone telling me they've done it. I'll either graciously accept their word, or ask them to show me how, or not be interested enough and change the subject. (Or whatever. It's life. Go for it.)
-
@kasper81 said
" (To Los)
hey you must admit when JWParsons did , "the Barrtzabel working" on LR Hubbard that was pretty unusual ie the storm at sea forcing the yacht back to shore?Then again ........................I don't have the meteorological stats for those days/weeks maybe the sea was stormy that entire month"
If you cannot predict Los's reaction/response, you aren't trying very hard to understand his point of view.
There is no "must" required. It could have been a wholly fabricated tale or a grand delusion.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"You and I are on substantially the same track (I just didn't lay out all of the project parameters)."And you would also agree that until someone has performed (and repeated) this experiment and gathered sufficient evidence, a person would not be justified in accepting the claim, "Magic spells can affect the weather"?"
No, you know I don't agree with that."
I didn't know you don't agree with that. I'm trying to get my head around your position because it's unclear.
Accepting a claim is binary: either a person either accepts a claim or doesn't (currently). If someone isn't sure about whether a claim is true, then they are still in the I-don't-accept-this-claim-(at-least-not-yet) camp.
Take, for example, the claim "The Loch Ness Monster exists." There are only two possible positions: a person accepts that claim as true or does not accept that claim as true. I contend that the only valid reason for accepting that claim -- or any claim -- is to be convinced of it by evidence. Until such a time as one is convinced, one does not accept it (which, to be clear, isn't the same as accepting that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist...not accepting the claim simply means the person in question isn't convinced yet).
So on the question of the claim "Magic spells can affect the weather," you can only take one of two positions: you accept that claim as true or you don't (currently) accept it as true.
Now, you've freely admitted that you haven't done an experiment that would furnish someone with sufficient evidence, and I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying you likely don't know of a rigorous stastical anlaysis of this claim.
So you freely admit, then, that there's insufficient evidence for the claim. Hence, you can't have valid grounds for accepting that that claim is true. If you do accept it as true, then you're accepting it for bad reasons.
So I think, by the definitions I lay out above, you would fall into the I-don't-accept-it-(at-least-not yet) camp. Again, that's not the same thing as holding that it's impossible to use magic to affect the weather...just that you don't (yet) have sufficient evidence for accepting this claim. Indeed, you can say that you think the "universe is grand, and hey, it may be possible" but still not (currently, with the evidence you have now) accept this claim as true.
That's why I was asking you to clarify your position.
If, however, you're saying that you accept this claim without sufficient evidence, that strikes me as a dumb position.
-
"So on the question of the claim "Magic spells can affect the weather," you can only take one of two positions: you accept that claim as true or you don't (currently) accept it as true."
This reasoning is your continual mistake. Life isn't black or white, or yes or no, there is room for "I don't know", and a gray area. For example with your example of the Lock Ness Monster; one may simply not be convinced either way, they may BELIEVE it is possible; yet, perhaps simply think it's just unlikely. They may feel they could be mistaken, or realize they simply do not have all the answers to know beyond all doubt as well, which is Jim's point, for another example. Even the most hard nosed skeptic admits we do not know everything, and it is possible. You even admit that psychic ability is "possible" yet you reserve judgement on it, until you receive the proof you require. So, I do not agree at all with your points here.
-
@Jason R said
" Life isn't black or white, or yes or no, there is room for "I don't know", and a gray area."
Of course. But when we're talking about accepting a claim, one either does or does not. Someone who isn't sure or doesn't know is in the I-dont-accept-it-(at-least-not-yet) camp.
It's sort of like being a Yankees fan. If you're not sure that you like the Yankees, you are outside of the group labeled "Yankee fans."
Not accepting a claim simply means that -- right now, at this moment, with the evidence you have -- you don't accept it as true. It's not a statement of absolute certainty that the claim is false...it's just a statement that right now there's insufficient evidence to convince you.
"You even admit that psychic ability is "possible" yet you reserve judgement on it, until you receive the proof you require."
Correct. I'm in the I-dont-accept-it-(at-least-not-yet) camp. Based on the weight of evidence, I predict that I probably will remain in that camp, but I'm willing to be convinced.
-
"you can't affect the weather by doing a rain dance."
You make frequent positive statements of belief like this. Then you conflate that position with one of agnostic neutrality.
In short, you are making a logical leap between "don't accept" and "reject". It's a little trick you use so that you can turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence.
-
"Of course. But when we're talking about accepting a claim, one either does or does not. Someone who isn't sure or doesn't know is in the I-dont-accept-it-(at-least-not-yet) camp.
It's sort of like being a Yankees fan. If you're not sure that you like the Yankees, you are outside of the group labeled "Yankee fans."
Not accepting a claim simply means that -- right now, at this moment, with the evidence you have -- you don't accept it as true. It's not a statement of absolute certainty that the claim is false...it's just a statement that right now there's insufficient evidence to convince you."
I think this idea is more of your opinion than reality. Just because someone is unsure, doesn't automatically put them in the "I don't accept it as true" team.
Someone may be indifferent, or simply unable to understand the situation to make a judgement, which in reality we all are in when it comes to ultimate truth about the world. For example, someone may say a machine will revolutionize the computer industry. I am not good at computers, so without any type of real expertise I may reserve any type of judgement. This doesn't mean I feel it isn't true, I may look at the guy, and take into account what I know about him, and how the machine seems to suggest it just may be what he claims, yet I am not sure.
If I'm a Yankees fan, I still may know they suck, or some bit of information that makes me doubt they may win. There so many variables we take into account, and so many ways to view and consider something. I think your over simplifying things a bit. It's simply unrealistic to view everything this way.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
""you can't affect the weather by doing a rain dance."
You make frequent positive statements of belief like this. Then you conflate that position with one of agnostic neutrality.
In short, you are making a logical leap between "don't accept" and "reject". It's a little trick you use so that you can turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence."
Exactly, well said. You hit the nail on the head here.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
""you can't affect the weather by doing a rain dance."
You make frequent positive statements of belief like this. Then you conflate that position with one of agnostic neutrality.
In short, you are making a logical leap between "don't accept" and "reject". It's a little trick you use so that you can turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence."
Well, I'm speaking in different contexts when I make each of those statements, and it's true that I don't always go out of my way to make it clear which context I'm speaking in.
When I say, "There is insufficient evidence to convince me of this claim, but it is theoretically possible," I'm speaking in a super-abstract philosophical context, in which I'm talking about the most theoretical sense of "theorically possible" (as in, "It's theoretically possible that a race of pixies watches my TV after I go to sleep").
But when I say things like, "C'mon, wake up -- you can't make it rain by doing a jig in your living room," I'm speaking in terms of practical knowledge, where the massive amount of evidence that we have -- for example, the fact that nobody has ever demosntrated that there's even any mechanism whereby a merry old jig might affect the weather -- gives me license to say that, for all practical intents and purposes, this is so.
A comparison I often make is to the claim "Leprechauns exist."
Technically, in the most abstract of philosophical sense, I have to admit that it's possible that there could be a leprechaun somewhere in the universe and so I reserve judgment.
But in terms of practical knowledge -- in the context of useful things to know about the day-to-day world -- I would be comfortable, in any day-to-day context, with saying that I know there are no leprechauns.
In the same context that I can say that I know there are no leprechauns, I can say that I know you can't make it rain by doing a merry old jig.
-
@Jason R said
" someone may say a machine will revolutionize the computer industry. I am not good at computers, so without any type of real expertise I may reserve any type of judgement."
Right, you reserve judgment. That is to say, you don't accept it as true (you can't, in this situation, because you simply don't have enough information).
When I say that a person doesn't accept a claim as true, it doesn't mean that the person accepts it as false. There's a huge difference between "I don't accept X as true" and "I think X is false."
-
@Los said
"I can say that I know you can't make it rain by doing a merry old jig."
Jigga what?
$$$
My ex could (surprisingly) make it rain from dancing. They were usually all singles though.
$$$
-
Los,
I understand your point of view. I'm just pointing out that your reasoning, by switching between rules and arbitrarily choosing the goalposts, is showing evidence of serving something other than pure logic.
It seems to be serving a deeper need not to feel foolish, or gullibly believe in stupid things.
Many of the people you're engaging with are not trying to debate or convince you of the existence of goblins or the like even though that's the debate you keep trying to have with everyone.
I'm just pointing out that exploring out the unconscious roots of your need to debate reality is much more fertile ground when it comes to discovering True Will than the debate itself.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
" someone may say a machine will revolutionize the computer industry. I am not good at computers, so without any type of real expertise I may reserve any type of judgement."Right, you reserve judgment. That is to say, you don't accept it as true (you can't, in this situation, because you simply don't have enough information).
When I say that a person doesn't accept a claim as true, it doesn't mean that the person accepts it as false. There's a huge difference between "I don't accept X as true" and "I think X is false.""
So by this logic you do not "like" a food you have never tasted? Makes no sense. Your applying your own spin on it. It's simply a matter of semantics, and figure of speech. If I say I reserve judgement, and therefore, am saying I do not know, this does no automatically mean I do not believe it is true. If someone tells me a food is good, and it looks good, I may still wonder if it is, but I certainly do not disagree. After tasting a food I have never tasted, then, my "confusion" or ideas, are either confirmed "I liked it", or proven wrong "I do not like it". Your using a sort of computer type reasoning, that's much much too restrictive.