Magick: Subjective, or Objective.
-
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...
-
@Nudor said
"And the first cannot be answered (except to each individual)"
See, that's where we totally disagree. Language is based on consentual definitions. One of the basic problems of communication (aside from the really big things like intention to communicate and consideration of one's intended audience) is that people don't use the dictionary enough.
"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."
Thanks. I get your answer.
"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."
I personally thought it was a silly question - meaning, it's answer wasn't going to give me, personally, anything of value - but I presumed it was important to the person who asked it, so I was willing to play along.
"Quite simply, objective means free from bias."
All bias is inherent in subjetiveness. However, people sometimes say they are being objective when they are not.
"From reading the posts just on this forum alone I don't comprehend how Magick could be one or the other."
I don't either.
-
93,
It constantly amazes me how little grasp of words or reality that occultists seem to have. We all know what subjective and objective mean. Only one person can experience something subjective. Many people can experience something objective (although their experiences might differ slightly as multiple people looking at hte same tree will be looking at it from different angles but they all agree that it has objective existence.) Its quite simple. The "there is an answer and there is no answer," "there is no objective reality," are all silly attempts at seeming profound or else they are products of a confused mind.
Your robe is an objective thing. Your feelings are subjective. Your feet are objective. Pain is subjective. Its so simple and yet, again, it amazes me how little grasp on these simple concepts many people seem to have.
IAO131
-
Last year I invoked Horus and requested the god to burn an evil-doer’s apt to the ground. A few weeks later I learned the same person’s second apt in another city 5 hours away (the larger and more expensive one but NOT the intended target, I might add) burned down because of “faulty electric wiring”. When I heard the story it felt like the universe, looking down on my tears and anguish, winked at me. Coincidence or fitting punishment for an evil-doer who destroyed two families?
One thing I learned in the last 2 years is that regular banishings/invoking can alter “objective” reality. Reality starts to become very fluid. When a current starts to manifest it can feel like you’ve accidentally walked into a Fellini set wherein your world segues into an unfolding surreal situation that, at the same time, was “always there”, you just couldn’t see it before.
-
@h2h said
"One thing I learned in the last 2 years is that regular banishings/invoking can alter “objective” reality."
Sorry I didn't phrase the above correctly. I should rather say, it can alter one's sense of "normal" reality. The laws of the universe are still in place.
-
Regarding my quote (first sentence of my response to Jim) if you paraphrase it, the meaning is lost. The whole sentence must be used. Is says ON THIS FORUM. Of course we can use a dictionary to define a term and if there is general acceptance that then may be the definition. But not on this FORUM. Look at all the responses since. Yes, a silly question, that was my point. And also, by continuing to respond, I'm still playing along.
(Rif Raf I mentioned using a dictionary adjacent to Jim's theory, you can't come to answer unless you first define the terms. This doesn't change my view that Magick is subjective and objective (is) and forms together in the union of opposites (isn't) and then you are (beyond such things). Though is may not be simple enough of a grasp for AUM18.)
-
@Nudor said
"Of course we can use a dictionary to define a term and if there is general acceptance that then may be the definition. But not on this FORUM."
I find this distinction bizarre.
This forum is a specialty classroom of a college. Practically our first rule for enrolled students is: Use a dictionary! Look things up! That's the starting point of being able to understand what you are reading, and being able to communicate what you want to say.
So, I would say instead: On this forum ESPECIALLY we can use a dictionary to define a term and to find and employ the generally accepted meaning of the word. (The exception, of course, would be words that have acquired technical special meanings less likely to be found in a dictionary, e.g., Qabalistic technical terms like "understanding.")
-
Again, let clarify my distinction. I did not mean to imply that we CAN'T use a dictionary, or that there won't be partial agreement. However, it seems like if you did present a dictionary's definition there would still be members who would refute or debate those definitions, in essence, it would be impossible to get everyone to agree that whatever dictionary was used to define a term is THE definition. Now if suddenly everyone were to agree, then my experience would be wrong. And in this case, desirable.
Also, let's distinguish between traditional definitions and each individuals experiences (which I believe is the case here). As was said in another post on What Is Magick?, for the sake of the thread, it would be more interesting to read each individuals definition, rather than Crowley's classic definition. If that is the case, why are we trying to bring this back to a traditional definition? Especially, since magick often results in redefining of perception/experience/reality/definition. These may no longer apply. Thus, as we both agree, it is a bit silly to define magick as either subjective or objective. Regardless of whether we accept a dictionary definition or not.
On the classroom comment, I didn't see that pretext anywhere on the forum. Not that I disagree with it, but it accounts for the confusion AUM18 pointed out. How many members of this forum are enrolled students of the COT? Perhaps these rules can be posted so we can all be on the same page.
Here's another example. Get a dictionary. Okay. My Webster's defines objective as "pertaining to material objects rather than mental concepts" and "something that one works towards, a goal, a purpose." It defines subjective as "taking place within, relating to or preceding from an individual's emotions or mind." These are a bit different than the definitions used by Rif Raf (so we at least have to use the SAME dictionary if this is going to work) but to recap my view. Magick is both. It certainly precedes from the mind (and unless a second witness is present to observe material change is stays there) but certainly is SOMETHING THAT ONE WORKS TOWARDS, A GOAL and A PURPOSE (thus it is objective as well) by definition.
Jim, I never disagreed in application, as above it does work, but when the replies come in, on this forum (which is public, not just a classroom for the COT) disagreeing with both my view but my definitions (derived from said dictionary) I doesn't seem like my comment about distinction on this forum is that bizarre.