BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The Metaphysics of Magic(k)

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Quantum
09:38 / 25.09.03
Please note- this is the Headshop, and the thread concerns the philosophy behind magick, not the magick itself.

So, I believe in Magick and I have a whole raft of beliefs supporting that (that reality is consensual, that we have an incomplete understanding of the world, that we project meaning onto our sensory information etc.). They are internally consistent and fit the facts of the world, and explain phenomena that other paradigms (e.g. scientific literalism) cannot. I am a rational magician.
Other people also believe in magic, and I think they have well crafted paradigms of consistent beliefs that allow them to believe in it. They share some of my beliefs and not others, but we agree that magic happens.

So my question is this- what beliefs are shared by all magicians? What are the fundamental beliefs that support a magical paradigm? What are the metaphysics of magick?
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:59 / 25.09.03
I know this is a bit irritating, but what exactly do you mean by "magic/k"? If you want to thrash out a common metphysics, then perhaps having a bare set of things that magic encompasses might be useful. I realise that that is actually a pretty tall order, but as a reader, I'd find it useful.

Also, can you explain to me what "reality is consensual" entails?. For instance, by contrasting it with the position that reality is not consensual.
 
 
illmatic
10:29 / 25.09.03
I think that’s a tough call, Lurid but perhaps a necessary one. The only thing I can think of here is the idea that magician believe that certain phenomena occur that cannot be explained, and are in fact in contradiction with, current scientific explanations of the world, especially with regard to casuality. Or is this far too narrow?
 
 
Quantum
11:20 / 25.09.03
Okay, a bit of unpacking for clarity- by Magic I mean the apparently acausal connection between intent or will and results- changing the world in conformance with one's will by apparently impossible, supernatural or inexplicable means. Not a perfect definition, but good enough. If we need a better one I'm sure we can steal one from an old Magick thread. I'm intending it to encompass all traditions of magic, witchcraft, hermeticism, chaos etc. but not things that are difficult to define like art or writing, that could be considered magic but usually aren't.

Also, can you explain to me what "reality is consensual" entails?. For instance, by contrasting it with the position that reality is not consensual.
I'm really contrasting that with 'reality is objective'. Reality (AFAIK!) is subjective to each of us, we experience it only from our own point of view. However, I don't encourage solipsism as I think it's egomaniacal, I take it as an article of faith that there are other people and they are conscious too, and we share a similar enough view of reality to be able to talk about it. I believe that our beliefs shape our reality, but we share a lot of beliefs (gravity, logic, induction) which we have a consensus on.
So we live in and talk about a reality that we consensually agree is a certain way (the common sense view of the world), and we have so much faith in this shared interpretation of phenomena that we think of it as existing objectively, being fixed and having rules and such.
By denying the objective nature of the world and instead asserting a consensual nature, like an hallucination we all experience (cf. the Matrix) we allow the possibility of the contravention of 'Natural Laws', and so can believe in Miracles and Magic but still keep an internally consistent world view. If we believe in scientific literalism we lose that capability unless we start to employ unusual mental gymnastics (which magi often do, but this is a philosophical discussion and as such should keep to rational, consensual logical rules or move to the magick).

So, for example, I think that to have a consistent world view a mage must hold that reality is mutable, not fixed by objective laws as the ordinary person thinks. Otherwise they won't be able to change it.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:42 / 25.09.03
So what you are saying is that, from the perspective of magick, there is a consensus on events like gravity, nuclear physics, stellar mechanics, causality etc. And that by challenging that consensus, one escapes the tight strictures of certain "laws", though perhaps not entirely. One can bend, rather than break the rules?

So, for instance, for my computer to work it requires a certain implicit consent on my part that I could disrupt if I chose. So, by willing it, I can make my computer malfunction? I'm sure I've heard that sort of claim in the past.

On the other hand, while global warming (lets accept that it is happening, for the sake of argument) is also consensual, stopping it by force of will is much harder. An interesting question here is to ask whether the right's insistence that global warming doesn't happen counts as a working - changing consensus reality. If it does, does it make sense to support the working as the effects (getting rid of global warming) will be beneficial?

You can ask that sort of question with all sorts of issues.
 
 
Melissa & Ev
11:53 / 25.09.03
Magic(k) is simply living & relating.

With care & awareness & discretion & intent. A willingness to sumbit to Self at the expense of Other & vice-versa. A willingness to break oneself on the rack--not for others & not for ego, but for Self & ?.

A fragile balancing act that several billion people do through networks of various sorts of structures (physical & mental, concrete & abstract).

We could do it better, but that isn't this discussion.

That is what I mean by magic(k), anyway. What does it mean to U (universal: to the floor...)? This is important for each to answer...
 
 
Melissa & Ev
11:58 / 25.09.03
{the above was posted before seeing lurid's last, so to add}

I feel that it is more the magician tries to "make the rule" or perhaps better, become the rule.

The Self Rule

But, like particle pair creation, this can only go on for so long.
 
 
Quantum
13:39 / 25.09.03
Lurid- from the perspective of magick, there is a consensus on events like gravity,

Well I'm trying to identify the minimal common ground of all magical paradigms, rather than typify the perspective of magic as a paradigm. From a perspective that allows a rational belief in magick (i.e. mine), reality is a consensual hallucination that has stable aspects like gravity, causality etc.

So, for instance, for my computer to work it requires a certain implicit consent on my part that I could disrupt if I chose. So, by willing it, I can make my computer malfunction? I'm sure I've heard that sort of claim in the past.
Yes and no. I believe you could disrupt your computer by willing it (perhaps with a ritual to accompany it or whatever) but not by simply witholding your consent- that would slip into solipsism.

I believe there are factors to consider that keep our reality stable. Historical inertia, for example- if something has been the same for a long time, it won't change overnight. You could think of this (if you buy into the consensual reality that is shaped by belief) as the momentum of everyone's belief- most inhabitants of our reality don't believe things will change overnight, so they don't.
Similarly, a magician is unable to simply make the sun go out or the world cease to be- almost everything (include animals, insects, rocks and spirits as you wish or not) believes the sun will rise and existence continue, and the will of one mage against the collective will of everyone else will fail.

Global warming is a good example I want to explore a little. It occurred even though most people wouldn't believe it or think of it, as a consequence of other factors- i.e. the nature of chemistry. Although not many people are chemists, most people believe in chemistry and give it validity. Whether I know about it or not, chemical processes I cannot name are going on in my body, and I can get sick even if I don't believe it. Because chemistry (indeed all science) is an edifice that is built logically from solid foundations we all believe, and to deny it's conclusions is to deny it's foundations.
So even though there are few astrophysicists, and most people don't know about (or understand) baryon pairs or whatever, doesn't mean they aren't a part of our reality. They exist on the fringes, and the more theoretical they are the less reality we are prepared to give them.

So anyway, a working to reduce global warming would be unlikely to succeed because a) it's entered popular consciousness and is well known b) it's a consequence of a belief system most people support (empiricism) c) it would be difficult to get enough people believe in it, think how hard it is to get people to reduce their carbon emissions, which are causing the warming.

by challenging that consensus, one escapes the tight strictures of certain "laws", though perhaps not entirely. One can bend, rather than break the rules?
If they aren't laws or rules, but perceptions, you aren't constrained by them, and don't need to bend or break them. By not believing that natural laws are objectively true, you accept a worldview that allows miracles and magic (Hume defines a miracle as the violation of a natural law by divine intervention).
 
 
Quantum
14:05 / 25.09.03
An interesting question here is to ask whether the right's insistence that global warming doesn't happen counts as a working - changing consensus reality. If it does, does it make sense to support the working as the effects (getting rid of global warming) will be beneficial?
Sorry, to answer your question, I don't think it counts as a working in the sense we're using (supernatural/acausal effect). Simply changing our consensual reality is not magic, and changing people's beliefs about that reality is not magic (propoganda in this case). Changing reality by using a sigil, or casting a ritual, is magic.
To clarify, if we formed a vast conspiracy to propogate a lie (like there's no such thing as global warming) it wouldn't make it come true. The truth of science (in my worldview) is founded on our belief in consistency, a much more fundamental belief than propoganda can instill. If we believe that the basis of science is true (induction, causation, empirical methodology) then we have to accept the logical result of that, that scientific results are true. It's inconsistent to believe that chemists are wrong about global warming unless we have other chemists contesting their findings- we can't say science is wrong when it doesn't give us the results we want, we either accept it all or none of it.

I'm hoping this makes sense to you all and I'm not coming across as a demented magician trying to cling to rationality
 
 
cusm
17:41 / 25.09.03
On a related point, from the magickal paradigm, science is not discovering new fundamental truths of nature, but is creating them, the force of discovery forging law out of chaos. A bit like the ideas in Quantum mechanics of states being set when they are observed. It is again the same end effect, but the perspective is fundamentally different as it is based upon a subjective rather than objective reality. I think this is one of the primary elements of the magickal philosophy, leading to the conclusion that if these rules were set by our will, they can be reset or bent by more application of will.
 
 
eye landed
21:56 / 25.09.03
Quantum: ...by Magic I mean the apparently acausal connection between intent or will and results- changing the world in conformance with one's will by apparently impossible, supernatural or inexplicable means.

If that's your definition, then that's your answer. Anyone who doesn't share your belief in the power of the will does not believe in magic, and anyone who shares it does believe in magic. On that note, it would be mean to say it was a stupid question in the first place; instead, I think it's just a very difficult one. In order to answer it, you have to work within explicit definitions for some of the most abstract words in existence: belief, mind, real, natural, cause, and many more.

Though I practice what I call magick, I don't believe in magic(k) by your definition, since I don't believe that willworkings are acausal. If I did, I could hardly call myself rational, and I could hardly pretend that my will was involved (and I don't understand how you can do so). When I use my will to accomplish something, I expect that there are reasons why it works (or doesn't work). I just don't know what all of the processes are--in fact, I don't have true knowledge of any process, since the explanations I believe are subjective. More deeply, the explanations may not exist until I discover them, but this doesn't make the effect acausal any more than throwing a ball is acausal. This is true whether I am meditating on a poem, drawing sigils between tide lines, chanting Enochian during a sword kata, wishing upon a star, tiring myself out on the stairmaster, quitting smoking, or simply extending my hands to type.

My answer to the question (of what you must believe to be a magician) would be the belief that all events and entities exist only as usefully arbitrary (not arbitrarily useful!) interconnections. In addition, I think magick is impossible without some kind of language, which I define as a system of metaphorical representations. Combine those two and we discover that I don't believe any events or entities exist without a system of representations. (But then again, I just finished reading Snow Crash.)

An even more fundamental belief that is required for a magician is the belief in individual free will. A deterministic or pantheistic universe does not allow magic.

Of course, any of my points can be disputed as I have disputed yours (Quantum). Therefore, I think the only requisite belief is circular: if you believe in magic on your own terms, then you believe in magic.

Quantum: Simply changing our consensual reality is not magic, and changing people's beliefs about that reality is not magic (propoganda in this case). Changing reality by using a sigil, or casting a ritual, is magic.

You're saying that there is a reality beyond the consensus? An objective one? And magic is only real if it changes that objective reality? This seems to contradict your rational explanation of magic from your previous posts.

Quantum: To clarify, if we formed a vast conspiracy to propogate a lie (like there's no such thing as global warming) it wouldn't make it come true.

If we propagate a lie, we just propagate a lie. It doesn't become true. I guess you could call this social magic. It creates an effect through will: people don't bother about global warming anymore, thereby conserving the paper the propaganda is printed on. But global warming still happens. (On the other hand, maybe global warming isn't happening, and we are living in the propagated lie as we speak.) A true magic working to eradicate global warming could also manifest socially, by convincing people to reduce emissions and such. However, it could also manifest asocially by messing with the balance of the solar system (or any number of other ways).
 
 
SMS
03:23 / 26.09.03
I'm trying to think of this in two different ways: One is to determine the necessary conditions for the possibility of magic, and the other is to determine the necessary philosophical positions for the belief in magic. If we abandon Quantum's very strict definition, it seems that the necessary conditions for the possibility of magic are no more or less than the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience. It also seems that most philosophical positions could allow for magic as a possibility:
Empiricism, Rationalism, or (Transcendental Idealism?),
Direct Realism, Indirect Realism, or Phenomenalism,
Pragmatism, whatever,...

The only place I think you might really find pitfalls is under logical positivism, where the claim is that no proposition has meaning but the verification of the proposition. But, then, you fall into pitfalls here trying to show lots of things.

There are theists in all of these categories (don't know about transcendental idealism or logical positivists), so they all allow for divine intervention of a kind. And I do think divine intervention would be classed under magic.

I'm not even willing to say that magic requires an abandonment of determinism: If the laws say I will cast a spell and spells work according to rules (under natural law or not), then this could imply a determinist world. Then again, I could be way off, because I think determinists and free willers alike are both nuts.

Now, if I go back to magic as "the apparently acausal connection between intent or will and results," I find that this is no different a claim than some make about every act my non-physical mind has on the physical world. I admit I don't get the acausal part, but that's part of their claim, too. Is this magic? The will and power to act?

What I think might be interesting is to look into specific philosophers and see how magic might fit into what they're talking about. Does it solve any problems that they have, create new ones, or fit nicely into their work already. I suspect it will be different from one to the next, but I don't think we're really ready to answer the question generally until we look into specific cases, first.
 
 
Thjatsi
05:11 / 26.09.03
Can anyone think of a way to test the claim that reality is consensual rather than objective?
 
 
Quantum
07:56 / 26.09.03
substatique, re-read my post- I believe I wrote..apparently acausal.. meaning from a non-magical point of view. As a magician I see performing a ritual the cause and my desired effect, the effect, but most people would not agree.

"all events and entities exist only as usefully arbitrary (not arbitrarily useful!) interconnections."
I don't believe this as it stands, although if you explain it a bit more I think I would agree. I'm not sure how it's a prerequisite of magical belief.
"In addition, I think magick is impossible without some kind of language, which I define as a system of metaphorical representations."
I definitely agree with that!
"You're saying that there is a reality beyond the consensus? An objective one? And magic is only real if it changes that objective reality?"
No. I'm attempting to keep our definition of magic in this context from spreading to things like stretching out my hands to type. A lot of things can be understood as magical acts, but I want to use a definition that will include only supernatural magic, because otherwise we are discussing what you need to believe in order to type. Which is different than discussing what you need to believe in order to have a rational magical paradigm.

SMatthewStolte- One is to determine the necessary conditions for the possibility of magic, ... If we abandon Quantum's very strict definition, it seems that the necessary conditions for the possibility of magic are no more or less than the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience. It also seems that most philosophical positions could allow for magic as a possibility
I agree, but see below...

...and the other is to determine the necessary philosophical positions for the belief in magic.
That's what I'm asking about. I'm not attempting to identify the objective metaphysics of magic, because I don't believe in objective truth, but I am trying to find the common beliefs magicians share, a metaparadigm of magic I suppose.
If we look to philosophers and try to see whether their systems allow magic we will be focussing on the necessary conditions for the possibility of magic, which as you say are unproblematic.

Anthropology, history and sociology can get us some of the way there by showing us traditional shamanic, tribal and witchy beliefs etc. we can look at the golden dawn and famous magicians and see what they all believed, but magicians are typically strong willed and believe they know the *truth*. Whether it's orgone or chi, NLP or clairvoyance, they believe in it as objectively true, and that it allows them supernatural powers. This is where it gets complicated, because I don't believe in an objectively extant reality, but I believe in magic- what beliefs do I share with a tantric adept and a reiki healer, a ritual magician and shaman?

Thjatsi- Can anyone think of a way to test the claim that reality is concentual rather than objective?
You are slipping into logical positivism there I think. But yes- observe a quantum physics experiment, collapse the wave function of a photon by observation, realise there is no such thing as an observerless universe. That would, however, only prove reality is subjective (or at least reflexive and holographic).
Please note you are assuming that 'claims must be empirically testable'- that is the foundation of logical positivism, and is empirically untestable.
 
 
Quantum
08:05 / 26.09.03
Cusm- I think this is one of the primary elements of the magickal philosophy, leading to the conclusion that if these rules were set by our will, they can be reset or bent by more application of will.
I do too, I think those who believe their Will can directly affect the world must believe the world is constructed from Will (at least our understanding of it).
What are other implications? I think an anthropic world view is pretty important (that the world is like a person) but I'm not sure it's definitely implied, it might just be a common view among magicians.
 
 
Melissa & Ev
09:35 / 26.09.03
"On a related point, from the magickal paradigm, science is not discovering new fundamental truths of nature, but is creating them, the force of discovery forging law out of chaos."

Exactly. Science and Art are artificially seperated, but...

...this is not only from a "magickal paradigm" {bzwrd! x2}, but I feel from a "parapostmodern paradigm" {S(uck) I(t) U(p) or SIU buzzzz!}, which is to say a more modern mode of thinking (because anything post-modern first had to be modern & that is its nut-shell cracked deconstructive supportings {Buzz Overload Synthesis Mania! or BOSM!}), and...

...I will not bore some of you people with a boring 40, 000+++ wrd.doc. analysis of how your dichotomized modes of thinking bore me.

Carry on.
 
 
Quantum
09:57 / 26.09.03
Many apologies for the rot, and to Melissa if you wrote that- you seem nice.
Godog, bugger off. You aren't contributing to the conversation about the fundamental beliefs inherent in a magical paradigm, you're evangelising your paradigm, which by the way places an undue emphasis on Dualism and dichotomies. If you are involved in the discussion, try to stick to the subject (magical beliefs) and the style (philosophy) appropriate to the forum and thread.

To repeat our agenda here, we are investigating the necessary philosophical positions for the belief in magic- NOT the magical beliefs themselves (such as the laws of sympathy and contagion) but the paradigm that allows a magician to hold those beliefs.
 
 
Melissa & Ev
10:59 / 26.09.03
[careful rot]

"You aren't contributing to the conversation about the fundamental beliefs inherent in a magical paradigm, you're evangelising your paradigm, which by the way places an undue emphasis on Dualism and dichotomies."

Yes I am. These are fundamental beliefs for a magic(k)al paradigm.

I happen to occupy that paradigm sometimes.

When most people speak they are "evangelising" (bzwrd!) their view or "demonizing" someone else's much of the time.

Do you not like the way I speak and is this why you hurl an evaluative word at my style over someone else's?

No. I place undue emphasis a Joyful (reUnions. I do this as a product of most people's habitual dichotomized thinking. You do it above, Quantum:

Acausal / causal thinking is dualistic thinking.

I don't think about it like this.

Others do.

[/careful rot]
 
 
Bill Posters
11:12 / 26.09.03
I'm intending it to encompass all traditions of magic, witchcraft, hermeticism, chaos etc.

yep, I think it should.

My ten cents worth would be to try to answer this question kinda historically. (I'll try to get time to actually engage with the previous posts later today.)

1. Magick involves a concept of self which is unusual (in this culture) in that this self is not fully distinct from the 'outside world'. 'As above, so below, as within, so without', is the often-stated Hermetic refrain. (Hermetic being 2nd or 3rd centuries BCE.)
2. Magick (relatedly) involves a notion of correspondances. For eg., my anger, the god Mars, the planet Mars, the day tuesday (mardi in French), my Mars incense and the Kenneth Anger film on tv on tuesday all correspond.
3. Magick involves much psychology, be it Jungian analytical psychology of the early 1900's or Human Potential Movement type psychology from the 1960's (it's often both). Magick is not just about 'outer' change, but also 'inner' change, but then like i said, the two correspond.
4. Since Eliphas-Levi (in the 1890's?), magick has involved the 'energy' (orgone, prana, Qi or Chi) mentioned by Quantum above).
5. Since Gerald Gardner in the 1940's, magick has had a strong neo-romantic, nature-oriented facet.
6. Magick usually involves a belief in metaphysical realms (the otherworld, the Sephiroth, different dimensions etc) which affect and can be affected by the mage, and can also be visited by the mage in a neoshamanic journey or pathworking.
7. Chaos magick, IMHO, isn't as much of an innovation as an exacerbation of tendencies already present in magick, namely individualism, ecclecticism, relativism and related things which get lumped under the label of 'postmodern'.

Dunno if that's any help, but it's my working definition (pun intended) of the philosophical or ontological baseline which most magickal types dance to. Their tunes may be many and varied, but that doof is almost always there, IMHO.
 
 
Quantum
11:21 / 26.09.03
Bill, thanks- those are the sorts of magical beliefs we can look at to determine their common justifications. For example, as above so below- what justification can we find for this, or is it an article of faith?

If a Gardnerian Witch and a technochaotician believe something in common (e.g. that the self is extended into the world, buddha style) that allows them to practice magic, that's what I'm looking for. If some magicians don't share that belief but practice magic, then I'm looking for something more fundamental, the foundations that support beliefs like sympathy, contagion, correspondence etc.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:39 / 26.09.03
Quantum. To be honest I find your explanation of why a working to eliminate global warming difficult. Partly because I find it hard to see why the same reasoning would not apply to any magickal act. I guess the issue of scale is important.

So even though there are few astrophysicists, and most people don't know about (or understand) baryon pairs or whatever, doesn't mean they aren't a part of our reality. They exist on the fringes, and the more theoretical they are the less reality we are prepared to give them.

I think this is problematic. In the sense that we don't know how everything works and yet the depths of our ignorance fundamentally underpin the way the physical universe functions. Or are you saying that the history of the universe is a blank slate that is only discovered once we construct the appropriate tools?

Also, a naive reading would imagine that this knowledge on the fringe is the easiest to change. Yet such a change would have large scale consequences.

You are slipping into logical positivism there I think. But yes- observe a quantum physics experiment, collapse the wave function of a photon by observation, realise there is no such thing as an observerless universe. - Quantum

I don't think he is. Its one thing to say that the non definable/observable is meaningless, but quite another to ask if something *can* be observed or defined. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no such thing as an observerless universe". Unless, basic elements and energy count as "observers"? Or perhaps there is/was no universe before humans?

Quantum, I very much respect your efforts not to slip into solipsism. Or the brand of solipsism that constructs a metaphysics based on ideological preference. "I like that therefore I believe in it"
But I think there is a fundamental tension between most explanations of magick and this goal. I mean, you say that Thjatsi is making a mistake by assuming that claims, in this case magickal claims, are empirically testable. Aren't you thus saying that the effects of magick cannot be observed? Just trying to clarify.

Melissa/godog/mod3: I'm interested by this discussion and would repeat the request not to rot it. I'd hate to have to move your posts for deletion.
 
 
cusm
16:56 / 26.09.03
NOT the magical beliefs themselves (such as the laws of sympathy and contagion)

You say this, but also seek to determine the underlying shared 'truths' common to magical belief, the rules which define the magickal paradigm. By their very definition, these laws are the common truths which describe this philosophy, or are at least an attempt to do so. So, I suspect the answers you seek have already been written quite some time ago.
 
 
I The Golden Dawn-nie Darko U
10:59 / 27.09.03
Magic(k) is simply living & relating

With care & awareness & discretion & intent. A willingness to sumbit to Self at the expense of Other & vice-versa. A willingness to break oneself on the rack--not for others & not for ego, but for Self & ?.

This seems to be like the belief in “As Above, So Below.”

I think it’s a necessary belief for a magixz paradigm.

It also looks to contain a splinter of:

“Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

Which is also something I think is important for my magixz practice anyway.
 
 
Rage
11:04 / 28.09.03
I think it depends on who you ask. I guess there's a consensual belief that beliefs have the ability to work some cool-ass-reality-alteration-shit.

"Nothing is true: all is permitted" seems to be pretty popular these days.

There's a common realization that we can enter all these different tunnels/worlds/carnival rides/doors and experience new universes through these infinitely diverse outlooks.

There's also a common urge to tear these tunnels down when we get too hung up on them.
 
 
Quantum
10:42 / 29.09.03
Lurid- ..are you saying that the history of the universe is a blank slate that is only discovered once we construct the appropriate tools?
I don't think so. I think the universe itself may be a flood of data that we interpret in different ways, but I'm not sure this is a belief shared by all (or many) magicians.

Also, a naive reading would imagine that this knowledge on the fringe is the easiest to change. Yet such a change would have large scale consequences
Yes. Cutting edge research is the most contentious, and shapes research directions to follow. It may seem the easiest to change because less people know about it, but it is also extremely restricted and bound by other factors- the more specialised the area, the more focussed the subject, the stricter the rules to follow. I think.

Its one thing to say that the non definable/observable is meaningless, but quite another to ask if something *can* be observed or defined.
Fair enough, but the motivation for asking the question is often to then dismiss what can't be measured or defined, which is a position similar to logical positivism
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no such thing as an observerless universe". Unless, basic elements and energy count as "observers"?
Maybe they are, I don't know. To cliche a little, if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? By my paradigm, no- sound requires a hearer, otherwise it's just vibrating air. So in a similar way, elements and energy interacting in the distant past are meaningless and not a part of our reality until we observe them or their effects. Whether they exist or not depends on your interpretation of existence as a meaningful property, and as a subjectivist I don't- I don't believe existence is a predicate.

Or perhaps there is/was no universe before humans?
It could be that time is a subjective property (I think so, cf. Einstein) so before things that could perceive time passing it was meaningless. I'm approaching this from a fundamentally different perspective, I don't consider linear time to be an objective property of the world (because I don't believe in objective properties). Was there a universe before humans? If there were non-human observers then I'd say yes, if there weren't then I don't know- I don't consider it an important question.

you say that Thjatsi is making a mistake by assuming that claims, in this case magickal claims, are empirically testable. Aren't you thus saying that the effects of magick cannot be observed?
No, just that the demand for empirical testability is a hallmark of scientific literalism, and not necessary for magical beliefs- as a seperate paradigm it has different values.

Ragecore- I guess there's a consensual belief that beliefs have the ability to work some cool-ass-reality-alteration-shit.
There is among modern magicians (maybe) but a lot of magicians believe it's angels or spirits that do the stuff, not their beliefs.

More anon..
 
 
Quantum
13:53 / 29.09.03
I'd like to clarify the difference between magical beliefs like sympathy and contagion, discussed elsewhere (e.g. quantum magic and magical laws) and the beliefs that are their foundation. There are several 'levels' here- the belief that my sigil will work, the belief that sigils work because of the law of sympathy, and the belief that the law of sympathy works because... It's that root level I'm looking at, what justification or rationale do we appeal to to validate the laws of magic?

Somebody who believes in the law of sympathy (for example) must either feel that it just is true, so it's an article of faith, or else they must have a rationale for it. I want to get at that rationale.

My rationale is the anthropic subjective universe; sympathy is a law in the world because it's a psychological law (one thought leads to another similar thought) and the one reflects the other because we project meaning onto the world. "As above, so below" is true because the inner and outer world are the same, because it's an anthropic universe, shaped by our human perceptions.

So what does my rationale have in common with other people's?


I'm perfectly prepared to accept that there is no common foundation, that the commonality of magical paradigms lies only at the magical beliefs level- the only things magicians have in common are their beliefs in magic- but I'd like to explore it a little to be sure.
 
 
cusm
16:45 / 29.09.03
In that case, the commonality may simply be the belief that effects can be caused by events which can not be linked to the effect by any currently known scientific method. It is abandoning science in favor of faith that one's will can become manifest through some medium we can neither explain or identify. Or simply put: that magick works at all.

It is when we try to explain what that medium is, or how it works, that we get into specifics and principle theories. I suspect the basic underlying philosophy that you are looking for is more along the lines of "That the dominant scientific paradigm is not 100% accurate, there are forces it is unable to explain, and that these can be manipulated." Its like saying that the "fundamental laws" of science are not set in stone and can be budged now and then if you do it just right, which indicates that both reality is more mutable that popularly accepted, and that we don't really have anything like all the answers to how it works.
 
 
I The Golden Dawn-nie Darko U
19:15 / 29.09.03
It's that root level I'm looking at, what justification or rationale do we appeal to to validate the laws of magic?

L¡κe all røø† levels it iz ƒa¡†h aløne that jus†¡ƒ¡es.

Ra†¡ønal explana†¡øn iz alwayz ad or pøs† høc.

Ψ
 
 
SMS
20:40 / 29.09.03
In that case, the commonality may simply be the belief that effects can be caused by events which can not be linked to the effect by any currently known scientific method.

No, that can't be common, because I don't believe it, unless by scientific methods, you mean the very specific techniques that we have found for discovering things so far. The problem with science (the virtue of science) is that it changes whenever something new is discovered. You can't prove something in science is false, because, if you do, then you look at science and now it's changed it's mind: That's true, it says, not false.
 
 
LVX23
23:50 / 29.09.03
OK, just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying this thread. Hopefully I'll find some time soon to contribute appropriately, though work... she is a cruel mistress.
 
 
Quantum
07:59 / 30.09.03
I don't want to frame magick as a negative theory though, as just a conglomeration of those who reject science. There are also problems of sciencish (sic) magic (e.g. NLP, Reichian Orgone) which embrace that methodology, and magicians in the past, before the renaissance say, who lived in a world where science was pretty much unknown.

But I think Cusm is onto something with reality is more mutable that popularly accepted, and that we don't really have anything like all the answers to how it works
I think those are definitely characteristics of magical beliefs. If that is the sort of thing magicians share then we could divine (!) some sort of fundamental beliefs beneath the laws of magic. Contrast with the case that magicians only commonality is that magic works, which would leave us with a trivial similarity- "magicians all believe in magic".

GDDU- Yes, faith alone justifies the root level, what is the root level? Do magicians accept 'As Above So Below' on faith and then use that to justify more detailed beliefs, or do they have faith in something beyond magical laws, that allows them to rationally believe in those laws? (like my faith in an anthropic universe say)
Ra†¡ønal explana†¡øn iz alwayz ad or pøs† høc maybe for you, not for everyone.
 
 
cusm
15:29 / 30.09.03
Given, Science is as tricky a term to define sometimes as Magick. So, how about an arbuitrary distinction between the mindsets we are intending to discuss instead of the methods used. By that, I see two opposing mindsets:

* The universe is finite and that the laws known are immutable laws grounded in unchallengable truth. These are the cornerstoned upon which we build our understanding of reality. A closed minded approach.

* The universe is infinate and no laws are immutable. In fact, everything we know could still yet be completely wrong. As such, the possibilities are endless. An open minded approach.

Generally (but not universally), the scientific paradigm can be seen a the first, and the magical paradigm the second. Obviously there is a fair bit of overlap in technique across the two. However, I feel it is safe to at least say these paradigms are grounded in the mindsets above, even if not shared by all. So, there's a start.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:26 / 30.09.03
cusm, I think you have pinpointed the problem I have with these discussions.

* The universe is finite and that the laws known are immutable laws grounded in unchallengable truth. These are the cornerstoned upon which we build our understanding of reality. A closed minded approach.

...
Generally (but not universally), the scientific paradigm can be seen [to be this]

I mean, this is such an obvious straw man caricature that it is quite hard to engage with. It would be like me saying that magick is the retreat into comforting delusion while science is the hard job of facing difficult problems. Its about that biased. Its also pretty self evidently false, as the briefest foray into the science and its history will tell you.


I think I get what you are striving at, but you do yourself a disservice to present a position that says little more than magick good, science bad. Sure, you say that there is some overlap, but I still think it is a poor show. For instance, I'm sure that many of you would call someone like me closed minded. But my position, which is fairly accepting of science, is just a smidge more complicated than that.

Also, does anyone feel a small twinge when declaring of the paucity of science, carried out over the internet, on a mass produced machine? Perhaps not.

More later.
 
 
cusm
18:15 / 30.09.03
I'm not trying to apply a good/bad duality here, Lurid, so much as attempt to describe an intuitive difference that is difficult to put into words. Each approach is internally consistent and effective, but different. In trying to describe the magickal paradigm, it is useful to compare with a seemingly conflicting paradigm. The simplest difference here being science working with the "known" and magick the "unknown."

I think a more accurate duality might be discrete vs abstract. Magick then being closer to art, which it is classicly described as, an art. A scientist uses experimentation and testing to determine reliable truths through logical rigur. A magician/mystic intuits things that they may not be able to describe, and which may not be logically consistent, but which are still effective none the less. For example, the idea that effect can follow a cause not linked to that effect by any perceptable means. If science can not prove it, yet it occurs, is it then magick?

This all keeps pointing back to the annoying statement about any science suitably advanced that it can not be understood is indistinguishable from magic, doesn't it? The problem with the distinction between science and magick is that this distinction really exists only in the perceptions of the viewer.
 
 
Quantum
07:57 / 01.10.03
I'm beginning to think that maybe what magicians share is a psychology rather than a philosophy- an attitude toward the world that magicians have. cusm's characterisation above about open mindedness etc. seems to be a good example of a magical attitude common to magic workers.

On the other hand, I think it's fair to say a lot of scientists also have the same attitude of wonder and open mindedness, pick up any pop science book for an example, so it would make a difficult commonality- Dawkins and Hawking would be magicians.

Hmm. The difficulty is not in describing magical beliefs, but in getting a metabelief that excludes non-magicians. Perhaps it could be acceptable to identify something that magicians all have, and some non-magicians also have- for the metabelief to be inclusive of all magicians but not exclusive of non-magicians.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply