Yeesh, lots going on here…
From what I’ve said before, it should be apparent that I am onboard with LVX and Lurid insofar as science is not in a position to give proof to magick, nor vice-versa. Each of these exists in a box, and while it might well be that there are not two boxes, but one, both have their own methods for interacting with the contents of that box. In other words, there is no sense in saying that one validates the other—how can they? It would be much like saying that Buddhism validates Christianity.
As Lurid wrote, “every movement likes to claim that science *proves* them correct. From right wing economists to social planners to food companies,” and this is exactly the problem. What can science “prove” as correct that lies outside the domain of the scientific endeavour? Nothing. The proofs of science fall within the domain of science—are derivative of its own methods. In the same way, the proofs of magick fall within the domain of magick and are derivative of its own methods. The mistake is in thinking that “proof” is the equivalent of “truth”: it’s not.
Proofs rely on accepted methods, and by following an accepted method we can generate something that is consistent with the premises from which we started. Like LVX said, “Algebra is entirely consistent within algebra, just as Thelema is entirely consistent within Thelema.” Put differently, neither science, like Lurid notes, nor magick is about truth, but each involves methods peculiar to its own endeavours, and it is these methods which yield further information which is consistent with its presuppositions—if the information is inconsistent, then either the method needs work, or the assumptions do. But none of this is truth. So what’s truth? To quote Hegel:
“…truth therefore includes the negative also, what would be called the false, if it could be regarded as something from which one might abstract…The True is thus the Bacchanalian revel in which no member is not drunk; yet because each member collapses as soon as he drops out, the revel is just as much transparent and simple repose.” (The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller)
In other words, truth is not mere consistency of information derived from method peculiar to presuppositions—truth makes room within itself for the inconsistent as well as the consistent: it is the active drunken revelry and the passive sobering calm.
Bearing this in mind, I feel that claiming to know that the effects of quantum mechanics are limited to very small scales is merely placating knowledge—a way to ensure oneself and others that, while life in the subatomic world is quite bizarre, around here its merely business as usual: stay calm, stay secure, stay safe. Such knowledge cannot be truth because it has no room for inconsistency. Moreover, it seems that this T-Duality (see above)—an apparent consistency derived from the premises of current scientific thought via science’s methods—puts these sorts of reassuring utterances by the wayside: the universe looks the same at both large and small scales. Thus, instead of perpetuating a habitual sense of “that never happens around here,” start attempting to see how these things do occur right here in your own neighbourhood.
Now let’s take a moment to consider reduction. Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner states: “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” So where does reduction get us? Harold J. Morowitz illustrates it quite well in the article “Rediscovering the Mind” (reprinted in The Mind’s I, Hofstadter and Dennett):
First, the human mind, including consciousness and reflective thought, can be explained by activities of the central nervous system, which, in turn, can be reduced to the biological structure and function of that physiological system. Second, biological phenomena at all levels can be totally understood in terms of atomic physics, that is, through the action and interaction of the component atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and so forth. Third and last, atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system.
This, for sure, is a rough sketch, but it does lead us to ask, “What is reduction really?” Well, it appears as nothing more than a circle. Or, as Charlie Martin says, “there are no levels other than the base level”: all these phenomena—subatomic, atomic, biological, psychological—are all manifestations in one and the same space! Thus, a persistent but inattentive reductionist who says that it all comes down to this (where ‘this’ is some fraction of the circle’s area, the focus of reductionism’s arc of attention) appears to be merely unaware of the circle, or else, self-deceptive. In either case, we do not have to accept fractured spaces with their accompanying foci. So, keeping in mind that reductionism appears to lead to a circle, is there any real difference between reductionism and holism?
Holistically Renormalizing Reductive Holograms.
Or How Overcoming Fragmentation is a Selfish Affair.
Or {8, 9 / 9, 8 ; 17 / 17; 8 / 8; 7}
I don’t know if science and magick have really ever been separate. I mean, it might be that the languages of science and magick have always been pointing to the “same thing-beyond-words.” Let’s briefly consider alchemy and chemistry. Alchemy appears as a structured method whose aim is to bring about the alchemist’s union with creation via the creator. In other words, it provided, through its language, a method by which to experience something beyond words: something not describable through its language. Chemistry, in a similar fashion, appears as a structured method whose aim is to go beyond itself—to get at something not describable in its language—by seeking to understand the forces that underlie the interaction of elements. To do so, the language of chemistry concedes to the language of physics—and as we’ve seen, this leads us into the circle, right? In both alchemy and chemistry there is language that points towards forces outside of itself as a discipline, something beyond its own words. Now, aren’t these “forces” essentially the same thing, the same force? Aren’t both an attempt to delve into the mystery that lies beyond, to come to terms with the enigma of existence?
While it might be correct to think that the rise of rationalism, with all that accompanied it, also created a split between magick and science, or religion and science for that matter, is this really the case? Or is it merely a matter of how people have decided to divide themselves according to which methods they will use to investigate their interactions with the contents of a box with the hope of discovering, understanding, and participating in the unknown force behind these interactions? And so here is the metaphor of the diamond in a holographic universe.
The Absolute, if there is such a thing, is taken to be a multifaceted diamond—that is our premise. Accordingly, each facet of the diamond is taken to be a point of view: a little corner that makes sense, relative to a few other facets—but certainly not the majority (there are quite a few, I think we’d agree)—and in a fractured relationship with the Absolute; this latter is to say that the relation of a few facets, which would amount to the composite of our view, gives a distorted experience of the Absolute. So, we see the sense of LVX’s, “two levels: 1) the fragmentation of disciplines, such as Science and Magick, and 2) the fragmented nature of human analysis of the Absolute.” I would also add a third level, bearing in mind that we needn’t accept that there are ‘levels’, 3) the fragmentation of the Ego in its analysis of Self. To put this in perspective, I am saying that the fragmentation of the Absolute is a function of the different points of view or disciplines which comprise human analysis of the Absolute, and that these differing points of view are directly related to the Ego in its fractured sense of Self.
Adopting the holographic model, ideally, every part contains the picture of the whole. While we have noted that generally the parts reveal a “fuzzier” image of the whole, is this really a function of the “part to whole” relationship, or does it appear to be more of a function of memory that believes that there are parts separate from the whole? In other words, as long as we adopt a privileged vantage point—a facet or group of facets or some part of the hologram—and continue to relate this point to other view points, or other facets of the holographic structure, aren’t we really in the process of continually distorting our relation to the Absolute as opposed to clarifying it? Can the Ego understand the Self by fracturing itself into an ever increasing web of facets, an ever accumulating stock of metaphors?
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to expand our knowledge with acceptance and open-mindedness to other facets, but more realize that in knowledge there is memory, which is thought, and it is thought that sees through facets, that blurs the Absolute that is embedded as a whole in each part. In the perfect hologram the diamond appears to itself—the Self appears to itself. In other words, it seems as if the facets are constructions of Ego, and if the Ego is to directly experience the Absolute, then it has to see without its facets, see without memory, without thought. But don’t take my word for it, look at yourself: observe how your thoughts are products of memory and observe the fragmentation of your mind. Are you able to see the mechanisms at work that keep the Ego fragmented? Are not the mechanisms involved in this business of facets?
Putting this differently, there is no method for experiencing the Absolute, for seeing the diamond as a whole: method is based in memory and implies consistency, which in turn implies harmony amongst facets; i.e., method appears to create and affirm facets. As long as there are facets, which imply difference, we cannot experience the Absolute without distortion. The Self does not appear to the fragmented mind; thus, our passion needs to be directed at the Self, and it is in dissolving the fragmentation of the Ego that we will experience our True Self.
Perhaps this is the importance of Silence.
*—shhheZ—* |
