I clearly favour the latter approach, but with magic you don't have tastebuds.
No?
Let's carry the analogy a little farther and see if we can get more use out of it before beating it to death.
Ancient people had several resources for finding out what was safe and good to eat before actually putting it into their mouths. They could watch what animals ate (observation of nature), watch or ask other humans (observation of others), develop classes of foods-- i.e. "This is a fish, and I have found other fish good to eat in the past, therefore I'll see if this fish is good to eat" (construction of classifications). Denied these, or to back them up, is the age-old smell-touch-taste-wait system (observation of the material itself). We can, and probably do, use similar strategies ourselves. Of course, the following might only apply to me, so YMMV.
Observation of nature-- we've all developed ideas of how the universe works based on our observations of the world around us. A natural magic type person would be pretty literal with this one; they derive magical laws from natural ones like the changing of the seasons and the movements of heavenly bodies. Ceremonial types use alchemy and the stars, and modern mages might pay more attention to new theories in quantum physics, but if the natural world seems to follow a principle of magic, there's good evidence that it's useful in some way.
Observation of others-- What we do here on Barbelith. And most people seem to have a built-in bullshit detector for deciding that a particular human's opinion can't be trusted-- if you were an ancient person testing out berries in the woods and another person, with pupils dilated, pallor, sweating, and a bluish tinge to the lips and tongue, claiming to see various strange things which don't fit within your worldview at all, told you a particular kind of berry was "really good", you probably wouldn't believe ta unless you were looking for a similar experience. Signs of madness or idiocy in people generally make me doubt their opinion in matters of, say, politics, and I have no problem extending that generalization to magic.
Construction of classifications-- "Sigil magic has never worked for me" is a great example. In the future, Sypha and Anna, if you come across a technique which others laud highly but which seems to use the same principles as sigil magic, you might classify it as another form of sigil magic and be reluctant to place too much emphasis on it, which in itself might render it ineffective for you.
Observation of the material itself-- This is the old trial-and-error method. You start by examining the material for obvious signs of decay, a foul smell, burning or itching on contact with the skin, etc. and only if these things are all negative, then you can touch your tongue to it and wait to see if you're ill afterward. There are certain characteristics which you can use to tell if food is likely to be poisoned, and I suspect this is now getting at what Quantum is really asking here-- what is the look-smell-touch-taste method for us?
Look-- if a magical technique is presented in a cutesy book with a title involving frogs and warts, or "guaranteed to work", or requires me to buy something from the person who's telling me about it, it looks bad to me. If it absolutely requires something I can't get, like a chalice made of the skull of a thousand-year-old Tibetan mystic, it looks bad (i.e., it's a piece of perhaps-food that I can't reach in any way, so no sense even thinking about it).
Smell-- this is looking for signs of decay. If it seems to be just blind following of a formula (like "take up a pose and chant a rhyme") without any understanding of the principles of the formula (pose distracts the rational mind and may help with gnosis; rhymes are easy to remember or can be extemporized while in trance, and may serve as a way to encrypt a desire, much like a sigil), it's probably rotten. If the principle behind the working seems to be "Do something evil enough and it'll work" or something else simplistic and probably based on bad horror films, it's probably rotten.
Touch-- I read the technique over and try some of the visualizations in isolation to see if I experience an allergic reaction. For instance I once had a bad reaction to a version of the LBRP which replaced the archangels with a male and female deity from various cultures at each quarter. I think Apollo was paired up with Pele in the south. I actually closed my eyes for a minute to see if I could see the two deities standing next to each other in balance and harmony-- instant burning sensation on contact. Not safe to eat, for me at least. This seems to be fairly personal, so I think allergic reaction is a fair analogy.
If a given technique passes look-smell-touch for me, then I can try it out in a controlled fashion. My magical tastebuds will tell me if there's something wrong-- no change in consciousness (tastes like a rock to me, bub) or a change in consciousness which feels wrong (ugh! bitter!). If that happens I probably won't expect nourishment (in the first case) or won't proceed with the ritual (second case).
Thanks for raising this issue, Quantum. You've given me a chance to examine how I look at magic in a way I usually don't pay much attention to. |
).Not to proceed blithely without caution, but to crack on and attempt things – and then assess them in the light of your experience rather than relying on someone else’s. Waiting till you’ve read all the books or know enough so you won’t fuck up is impossible and just another form of procrastination in my book. 
)