First, it seems to be that if I was psychic enough to get James Randi’s money, then I’d also be psychic enough to foresee the misery, pain, and bondage that would be the rest of my life; thus, I wouldn't bother with the cash—definitely not worth it! But I’m not psychic—just using some common sense is all.
Second, I feel that there’s been lots of great things said by many of you people—both pros and cons to various things—that I am agreeable to. I won’t take your time by repeating them.
Third, let me add my two bits. My first bit of my third point is that I think there is, in a sense, a sort of difference between what gets called “psychic” phenomena and what gets called “magical” or “mystical” phenomena. Certainly the distinction is very blurry at times, but I think it might be a difference worth noting.
My second bit is that I think that what generates these phenomena is too “subtle” or “fine” to be subject to the mechanisms of a rigorous scientific study. I think this might be why some experiments seem to indicate success for such and such a so-called “paranormal” phenomena (ask me why ‘paranormal’ is a stupid word to use—just ask me), but the result, when tested more widely, isn’t so easily repeatable. I don’t mean this as a cop out, however. I mean, the context, environment, milieu, or whatever needs to be “just right” for these phenomena to manifest—they are, after all, typically “against the odds.” For a psychic example, I will sometimes know with certainty who is phoning me when the telephone first begins to ring. Sometimes I think this is merely a quick rationalization given other factors that I am (un)consciously aware of (time of call, where people I know are supposed to be, etc.), but other times there are no clear indicators as to why I ought to know who is calling—it’s a fine and intangible product of the moment. As for magic/k, well, I feel that in order to prove magic/k you have to understand it, and in order to understand it you have to do it, and once you do it you have proven it, and so, you needn’t prove it to anyone else—like LVX23 notes, “magick proceeds more by the meaning."
To let y’all keep the change, I feel that in trying to prove magic/k (not psychic) phenomena we can, if we are very alert, catch a lightning quick glimpse of the self-contradictory generator that underlies manifestation. It’s likely similar to what might be observed if we were smashing a particle into itself in a particle accelerator. But then, that’s clearly my subjective feelings about the matter. |
