Magick: Subjective, or Objective.
-
i do not have much experience but in my experience with it so far it has helped me realize things and this help seems to be coming from inside. yet when meditating, i feel many presences that are outside and influencing my thoughts. again... i am just a novice.
-
I think the more basic question is whether you regard any other aspect(s) of your life as primarily subjective or objective.
-
Alright, this is attempt three to post a reply croses fingers
@RifRaf said
"But one cannot deny an objective look on "every day life" because certain things can be seen, and confirmed from other peoples perspectives (regardless of class, or ecosystem, race, etc.). "
Can something be proved objective by collecting subjective accounts of it?
If I were pushed into a corner, I would say magick is both objective and subjective. The two concepts sharing the same relationship as sine and cosine, question(?) and answer(!), above and below, inner and outer. One cannot exist without the other as they are both the same. Where magick (ritual) acts as the bridge between, bringing the two seemingly opposing concepts into alignment.
This is all subjective of course. If it were objective, I would not have made a post or been aware that this thread even existed.
-
93,
There is a definite difference between subjective and objective and anyone who thinks that there is no difference is misunderstanding or parsing words. If we take a basic definition, anyhting objective can be observed or felt by multiple people. A tree is objective. Anything subjective can only be observed by yourself - normally we understand our thoughts, our emotions, hallucinations, dreams, etc. as all subjective.
The question is: Do you think Magick is confined only to this subjective realm? It seems some like Fortune would think so who defined magick as the science & art of causing changes in consciousness in conformity with the Will or something similar. Many people make objective claims, though, like there are really demons 'out there' that multiple people can see, that astral travel allows one to 'knock over objects' (said in another thread here) or see things in another room, that magical workings can cause money to show up, etc. There is a big and clear difference between subjective and objective.
I tend towards the subjective although I wish someone would produce evidence beyond the anecdotal for objective manifestations of magick.
IAO131
-
Yes... the truth in the mouth of two witnesses.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes... the truth in the mouth of two witnesses."
- Care to explain your Apocalyptic imagery-reference?IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"
- Care to explain your Apocalyptic imagery-reference?"It was a phrase occasionally used by Crowley to refer to a confirmable or objective truth: One that two separate people experiencing the same event would equally report.
-
And then there's the whole other Objectivism school of thought talked about by Ayn Rand in her classic work.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
"Objectivism derives its name from its conception of knowledge and values as objective: neither intrinsic nor subjective. According to Rand, concepts and values are not intrinsic to external reality, nor are they merely subjective (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by [one's] feelings, desires, 'intuitions,' or whims"; like wishful thinking). Rather, valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind.""
How I feel this relates to the discussion, is that any two people can witness the same event, and because of their vantage points and own personal feelings, when interviewed seperately both stories will usually be completely different, with maybe some similarities. Take the various stories gathered in UFO reports, where multiple people at one sighting see very different things.
-
@RifRaf said
"When you perform Magick (this is in the Magick sub-forum, if it was about anything else I would place it in General) do you believe the "results" are triggered within you, or that you deal with forces foreign to you? If you are one who thinks that both of these things occur, then you (in my opinion) take the objective stance because you are still saying that there is something outside of you (not at all of you) which is involved in the process, even if the "real change" occures within you."
93
Well put that way, yes I do believe that the change, brain change or energy change, whatever, occurs within me. So I guess that makes me siding with the subjective answer. -
@Frater Sabaechi said
"And then there's the whole other Objectivism school of thought talked about by Ayn Rand in her classic work.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
"Objectivism derives its name from its conception of knowledge and values as objective: neither intrinsic nor subjective. According to Rand, concepts and values are not intrinsic to external reality, nor are they merely subjective (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by [one's] feelings, desires, 'intuitions,' or whims"; like wishful thinking). Rather, valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind.""
How I feel this relates to the discussion, is that any two people can witness the same event, and because of their vantage points and own personal feelings, when interviewed seperately both stories will usually be completely different, with maybe some similarities. Take the various stories gathered in UFO reports, where multiple people at one sighting see very different things."
From your description it seems like you dont understand what Objectivism is (of Ayn Rand) nor do you seem to get the importance between objective and subjective. Yes, two people will give two different reports but the fact that they are reporting on the same thing, both experienced something, etc. shows there was something objective. If one person gives a report and another says: Nothing happened, someone waved their arms & shouted words in some strange language, but that was it - that woudl mean the phenomenon is subjective.
IAO131
-
@RifRaf said
"When you perform Magick {...} do you believe the "results" are triggered within you, or that you deal with forces foreign to you?"
There is nothing foreign to me that could be part of my magick and its results. The very essence of magick is profoundly intimate.
But (from the rest of your post) I think you meant "outside of, separate from, distinguished from," yes?
"If you are one who thinks that both of these things occur, then you (in my opinion) take the objective stance because you are still saying that there is something outside of you (not at all of you) which is involved in the process, even if the "real change" occures within you."
It sounds now like you're simply asking whether there is "something outside of you." Of course there is something objective "outside of you" where the word "you" means "what you normally experience as yourself."
However, I'd never go so far as to say "not at all of you." That's a pretty steep standard! All of existence is continuous. There is none of us that isn't "of" each other. This doesn't contradict the fact that we are discrete, distinguished, individual beings.
-
@Aum418 said
"From your description it seems like you dont understand what Objectivism is (of Ayn Rand) nor do you seem to get the importance between objective and subjective. Yes, two people will give two different reports but the fact that they are reporting on the same thing, both experienced something, etc. shows there was something objective. If one person gives a report and another says: Nothing happened, someone waved their arms & shouted words in some strange language, but that was it - that woudl mean the phenomenon is subjective.
IAO131"
I am reading Atlas Shrugged right now, after seeing the Ayn Rand movie recently on Showtime. Maybe I will come to understand it more that way.
What do you know of her philosophy that would help me come to understand it more?
-
@Frater Sabaechi said
"I am reading Atlas Shrugged right now, after seeing the Ayn Rand movie recently on Showtime. Maybe I will come to understand it more that way.
What do you know of her philosophy that would help me come to understand it more?"
You might want to check out this CliffsNotes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand#Philosophy:_Objectivism -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@RifRaf said
"When you perform Magick {...} do you believe the "results" are triggered within you, or that you deal with forces foreign to you?"There is nothing foreign to me that could be part of my magick and its results. The very essence of magick is profoundly intimate.
But (from the rest of your post) I think you meant "outside of, separate from, distinguished from," yes?
"If you are one who thinks that both of these things occur, then you (in my opinion) take the objective stance because you are still saying that there is something outside of you (not at all of you) which is involved in the process, even if the "real change" occures within you."
It sounds now like you're simply asking whether there is "something outside of you." Of course there is something objective "outside of you" where the word "you" means "what you normally experience as yourself."
However, I'd never go so far as to say "not at all of you." That's a pretty steep standard! All of existence is continuous. There is none of us that isn't "of" each other. This doesn't contradict the fact that we are discrete, distinguished, individual beings."
Yes, yes, but some facts are objective and some are subjective. Whether your self includes mind & body or the whole world is irrelevant. Your dreams and thoughts are still subjective and that part of You which is a book, thunderstorm, or a tree are objective.
IAO131
-
Rand's "philosophy" can be thrown in the trashcan (IMO).
-
...or, as long as we're speaking English, the dictionary needs to be consulted before words are used...
In any case, it's kinda silly to ask a question about which of two words someone thinks applies to a situation unless there is common understanding of the meanings of the words. Absent a provided definition, one needs to use the standard meanings of the words.
-
Nothing is objective.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
Everyone will make their own definitions no matter what definitions you present. Even if the above definitions were accepted universally, that still is not the point of the thread. The thread is not "what is the definition of subjective or objective." The thread is "Is Magick subjective or objective."
It is both and neither. It is beyond such definitions. Subjective and Objective merge into new awareness. There is no answer. And there is.
-
@Nudor said
"The thread is not "what is the definition of subjective or objective." The thread is "Is Magick subjective or objective.""
The thing is, you can't answer the second question until you answer the first.
-
And the first cannot be answered (except to each individual) so the second can never be answered (except to each individual) so my answer was that defining Magic cannot be done in any way that will form a consensus on this forum, thus IMHO it is beyond such things. Interesting to consider, but we are more concerned with what Magick does not what it is. Or are we? Theoretically, yes, you will have to define the two to get an answer, and I'll watch this thread for growth on the subject. Quite simply, objective means free from bias. Subjective is subject to personal response. From reading the posts just on this forum alone I don't comprehend how Magick could be one or the other. But we'll see (read) perhaps...