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)

 
 
LVX23
04:01 / 02.10.03
I think this is the underlying difficulty - that making distinctions between Magick & Science is itself discretionary. Many scientists are driven by intuition, insight, and leaps of faith (the good ones at least), all of which are inherently unscientific. Similarly the more advanced magicians advocate formalities and rigors steeped in empiricism. To quote Uncle Al, "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion".

And I think this is exactly what Quantum is getting at when he wonders if magician's "faith in something beyond magical laws, that allows them to rationally believe in those laws". Again, looking for rationalism within the magickal paradigm, blurring the lines between the two. Interestingly it would seem that Magick looks to Science for validation, while Science looks to Magick for inspiration. So it begins to seem evident that good science and good magick rely on each other.

But for the sake of this discussion, it is necessary to address the two disciplines as mutually opposed (all moral judgements aside) in order to characterize Magick and it's belief system. To return to the original query, "What are the fundamental beliefs that support a magical paradigm? What are the metaphysics of magick?" I think much of this has been alluded to already in this thread, such as the belief that physical law is not the final statement, that directed thought can influence physical systems, etc...

But to my mind the greatest aspect of the magickal paradigm is the reliance upon belief as the fundamental currency in the human-observed universe. Belief is what defines our relation to the phenomena around us, what constructs our understanding of how we as individuals fit within the vastness of the cosmos. In a very real sense magick is informed by the belief that, in spite of our seeming insignificance within this incomprehensibly vast cosmos, we remain as gods. As above, so below, The wonder of Creation is somehow mirrored within each of us and there resides the Mind of God.

Magick proceeds on the belief that we are each gods containing the whole of creation within our very cells. Magickal systems such as kabbalah, astrology, tarot, and alchemy are thus psychological mirrors used to unlock the answers resident within. As such they are ultimatelyinscrutible and unprovable by scientific means.
 
 
cusm
15:20 / 02.10.03
Or in other words, Magick depends upon that illusive element inherent in all spiritual systems: Faith.

Perhaps rather than viewing magick as opposing to science, it might be better seen as a bridge between science and religion.
 
 
Funktion
18:05 / 02.10.03
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.

Those do not necessarily disprove an observerless universe, they just imply different aspects of the universe, both the observed universe and the observerless universe.
it is like the objective reality vs. collective truth dualism you were arguing earlier.
'Reality' does not have to be either/or. Reality can have both objective aspects to it and aspects that are entirely subjective and rely on collective truth.
Your reliance on collective truth for a complete explanation of reality means you must believe that if everyone could be convinced into believing the sun would not rise, then the sun would not rise. I think this is a rather simplistic interpretation of what most people call magick. I think the underlying patterns and energy that are tapped into for magick are not necessarily bound by humans or even originated with them. Because of this, I think aspects of reality like the sun rising and gravity in general are not dependent on ANY amount of human belief or disbelief. They were set in motion before our race achieved any sort of magickal capability and are thus not bound by human's ability to shapeshift shadow realities.
Now, there are many specific instances where I think your collective truth interpretation has much more validity, but on the cosmic level I think all "reality is dependent on human's collective will" falls apart.
 
 
Quantum
11:21 / 03.10.03
Your reliance on collective truth for a complete explanation of reality means you must believe that if everyone could be convinced into believing the sun would not rise, then the sun would not rise.
..Everyone including the Sun. To stop the sun rising you'd have to persuade it not to rise, despite my anthropic view I don't believe humans are the be all and end all or the only consciousnesses around.

Your point on the cosmic level I think all "reality is dependent on human's collective will" falls apart is well made, but a better framing of it (that I think you will object less to) is "reality is dependent on collective will" .


So anyway, I was reading City Magick and the answer to my question coincidentally leapt out at me (as these things tend to do). The phrase "Instinct and intuition are at the heart of magick" kinda discouraged me from my rationalist endeavour. I think of rationality and intuition as the two sides of our minds (typified as Art/Magick and Science, incorrectly in my view as science uses intuition, art uses rationality etc) and since Magick is at core an intuitive Art, seeking the rational foundations is problematic.
Then of course a few pages later the book explicitly states the core belief of magick, answering my rational question I'd just decided was too hard to answer.

"REALITY IS MUTABLE"- that's the core belief of magick, the philosophical underpinnings and rationale, the article of faith that allows a rational belief in Magick. The laws of magick and various paradigms are just principles explaining how to change it (by belief, angels, orgone, whatever).

So the moral of the story is clear- questions about magick are best answered by Magick
 
 
eye landed
23:27 / 03.10.03
I'm glad you answered your question, Quantum, but what is your faith in that based on? Did you choose it arbitrarily? Did Harry Potter's sorting hat just put you into a system based on some unknowable quality? Looking for an ultimate root is futile, though it has certainly led to other discoveries (as history has shown likely).

I say magick is empiricism. All religions, including science, demand that you accept certain givens (like the scientific method, somebody's resurrection, the ubiquity of some deity, or the ultimate evil of somebody else). Magick does not. Magick's ideal is based on subjectivity: whatever works for you is right! Magick is no more than applied philosophy. Philosophy is the practice of thinking; magick is the practice of manifesting your thoughts, whether you call it magick or not.
 
 
Thjatsi
02:46 / 04.10.03
I don't want to seem rude. However, the concept that belief and ritual can change the world is very strange to me. As a result, I have a few questions about it. Have any of you ever used this ability in gambling? It seems to me that, if you can change the world in small ways, then you should be able to alter a game's probability well enough to make a decent living.
 
 
Seth
15:33 / 05.10.03
Thjatsi: I haven't used it in gambling, but I have used sigils to manipulate the probability of getting good leads in a call centre sales environment. My sales figures are now inexplicably high (no-one can tell me how I'm top of the department), and I've nominated for an award for my sales across the whole of UK financial services. I'm sure there may be many explanations for this, but none have yet been presented to me, as there is no existing MI in the department to show how, when and where I have been getting my sales.
 
 
Thjatsi
15:48 / 05.10.03
Okay, this is good, but it worries me that there are so many other factors that could have been involved in your success. I definitely prefer the gambling test, because it involves nothing but a game with strictly controlled probability and the force of the subject's will.
 
 
Seth
16:24 / 05.10.03
Absolutely, there are things that could explain my success. However, I have never put effort into my sales, I send out fewer applications than most people, I come several notches down from first on most of the other department competitions. I have no interest in the job whatsoever, my main motivation for applying was to have a simple, easy job in which I could underachieve and keep my head down for a while. My intention in using the sigil was more to test whether I could make sigil magic work, I didn't have much interest in the intention of the actual casting (which is probably why it's worked, as Illmatic pointed out to me the other week). That's the main point - I performed an action based on a specific intention, and it has now come to pass. I have no huge interest in how it happened, I'm just interested in the result. There may be other explanations, but think of it like this: in a sales environment, the coaching staff should have already determined how I've doing it and then set about helping the rest of the sales force to emulate my success. My figures for some months have been over 250% above target, way higher than anyone else. I'm not interested in the explanation, but it strikes me as odd that the management and coaching staff haven't been able to find one, either.
 
 
Thjatsi
02:16 / 06.10.03
I have no huge interest in how it happened, I'm just interested in the result.

If you knew how it worked, you might be able to make it work better, or you could apply it to new and interesting situations.

...it strikes me as odd that the management and coaching staff haven't been able to find one, either.

There are so many factors in being a salesman that I don't find this surprising. If I knew more about your job perhaps I could make a few suggestions.

Anyway, I'm surprised no one has tried this out in a game of chance, or is even interested in doing so. I'm the boring science-type person here, why the hell are you free spirits less adventurous than I am?
 
 
Quantum
08:27 / 06.10.03
substatique on 'Reality is mutable'- what is your faith in that based on? Did you choose it arbitrarily?
Experience and reason. My faith in it is based on seeing reality change. All the evidence I've experienced, taken as a whole, points to it being true.
I chose that principle to frame the core belief of magic because it embraces all traditions and justifies any path. Basically it seems to me to be a shared belief, what I was looking for. If I polled magic people and asked them, I think they'd agree on it.

On gambling, three things- firstly, you'd be asking for trouble if you use your magic to win at the slots or whatever, secondly, systems using random elements are often used in magic to divine the future, determining random events could undermine that- you're more likely to use cards for magic than magic to win at cards- and thirdly, I've tried it. Not for money, but..
I've spent a lot of time rolling dice in my life (I'm a roleplayer) and I've observed some strange phenomena, well outside the realms of likelihood. As I have an understanding of probability and statistics, I like to think I know when something is unusual, and there are (if you're scientifically minded) significant trends you could document if you cared to. For example, I have a friend who is very lucky with dice, and another who is very unlucky with dice. I've seen them, without cheating, roll a handfull of dice and get seven or eight of the same number they asked for, or alternatively bemoan their luck and then predictably roll exactly what they pessimistically said they would.
Thjatsi, if you're interested in luck magic then try it out- try predicting cards or rolling dice. But beware trying to prove magic using scientific method, it rarely ends well
the concept that belief and ritual can change the world is very strange to me.
I know what you mean, but think of any mundane event and see if it could be described as changing the world with belief and ritual. I go to the ATM, I believe it will give me money, I perform a ritual with a magic card, it gives me money- the world is changed, I was poor now I'm rich.

On a broader note, I thought of a good example of consensual reality- time. What time is it now? When I ask, you look at a clock. What does the clock measure? Our agreed timeframe (e.g. GMT), a day divided arbitrarily into 24 hours, each of 60 minutes etc. but all of it only has any reality because we agree it. You say 'It is six o'clock' and it's true, it really is 6, even though it's a consensual framework we place on an intangible thing.
If history had been slightly different, 'clockwise' could be widdershins, and there could be ten hours in a day and 244 minutes in an hour- and it would be the real time.
So what time is it really?
 
 
Seth
08:44 / 06.10.03
If you knew how it worked, you might be able to make it work better, or you could apply it to new and interesting situations.

My intention, in a nutshell, was "I will be the top salesperson in my department." I became the top salesperson. There was no better result to get from that intention. It's irrelevant whether magic was responsible or not, because no-one can prove either way. What matters is the result was spot-on.

There are so many factors in being a salesman that I don't find this surprising. If I knew more about your job perhaps I could make a few suggestions.

Oh, I can think of many other suggestions for how this might have happened. I've already considered a great many alternative explanations for how sigil magic might be successful, or how this particular working might have been successful. But there's nothing to choose between any of those explanations really, as far as I'm concerned.

The reason I haven't applied this to games of chance is because I don't play those types of games generally, and I have no real interest in learning the rules to satisfy someone else's need for experiment. If I'm not interested in proving that magic works to my satisfaction, why would I be interested in proving it to your satisfaction?
 
 
cusm
13:53 / 06.10.03
The problem with gambling is that everyone else involved is also trying (consciously or not) to use their own mojo to alter the outcome of the game. So, its not the cleanest of data to use.

Though I can back up the strangeness of RPG die rolling. I've even done it myself. Rolling two 10 sided dice, I got double 0s 13 times in a row once on an open ended roll. It was wierd, after the first few I realized that as long as I held a particular feeling in my head, the dice would continue coming up that way, and they did, to everyone's increasing amazement, until my concentration broke. That was by far the most probability shattering moment of my carear, without a doubt. So, that's enough for me to take as an example of success.
 
 
Thjatsi
09:08 / 12.10.03
...you'd be asking for trouble if you use your magic to win at the slots or whatever...

Why is that?

Thjatsi, if you're interested in luck magic then try it out- try predicting cards or rolling dice.

My skepticism makes me a poor subject. I need someone who actually believes that it works.

But beware trying to prove magic using scientific method, it rarely ends well.

If this is the case, I would only be able to conclude that either:

A. Magic doesn't exist.
B. Magic's effect is so small that it cannot be determined, and is therefore useless to me as an individual.

It's irrelevant whether magic was responsible or not, because no-one can prove either way. What matters is the result was spot-on...If I'm not interested in proving that magic works to my satisfaction, why would I be interested in proving it to your satisfaction?

Well, what if it was just a fluke, and you spend the rest of your life trying to work magic, but get no results. I would think that it would be in your best interest to figure out what exactly is going on.

The problem with gambling is that everyone else involved is also trying (consciously or not) to use their own mojo to alter the outcome of the game.

Then use a slot machine, or play video poker, or go at times when the casino is less populated, so that it is just you and the dealer.

Rolling two 10 sided dice, I got double 0s 13 times in a row once on an open ended roll.

This is pretty impressive, so I'm curious why you haven't tried it out for money.

Look, I'm not trying to be an ass here, but some of these responses are quite shocking. If you believe that magic exists, then why haven't you tried it out in the setting that is most likely to benefit you financially? If you aren't sure that magic exists, then why not give it a shot in a controlled environment to test it and find the boundaries. I am science-oriented. However, I am also willing to admit the possibility of magic. I just require proof before doing so.
 
 
Quantum
09:11 / 14.10.03
You're coming at it from the wrong angle. You're treating magic as though it were a theory you can test, some form of psychokinesis or similar. It isn't.

...you'd be asking for trouble if you use your magic to win at the slots or whatever...
Why is that?
Using magic for selfish ends often reaps unpleasant effects. Check out the magick forum for details.

Thjatsi, if you're interested in luck magic then try it out- try predicting cards or rolling dice.
My skepticism makes me a poor subject. I need someone who actually believes that it works.
So you think strength of the belief affects the power of the magic? That sounds like you already believe...

But beware trying to prove magic using scientific method, it rarely ends well.
If this is the case, I would only be able to conclude that either:
A. Magic doesn't exist.
B. Magic's effect is so small that it cannot be determined, and is therefore useless to me as an individual.
This is the case. BUT you are assuming that only things susceptible to scientific method exist, which is a flawed assumption.


Rolling two 10 sided dice, I got double 0s 13 times in a row once on an open ended roll.
This is pretty impressive, so I'm curious why you haven't tried it out for money.
Go and try it out. It's not terribly reliable.


I am science-oriented. However, I am also willing to admit the possibility of magic. I just require proof before doing so.
You need proof before you'll admit the possibility of something existing?
So do you only believe in things that have been proved to your satisfaction?
Could you quickly prove induction for me? The basis of scientific method, that the future will resemble the past? Without appealing to evidence from the past (because obviously that would assume that the future will continue to resemble the past and make the argument circular)?
It seems to me you should examine you'r understanding of proof. You'll never find yourself sitting in a lab watching a floating pencil, or see someone conjure fireballs from thin air- that sort of magic is fictional.
 
 
Seth
09:52 / 14.10.03
Well, what if it was just a fluke, and you spend the rest of your life trying to work magic, but get no results. I would think that it would be in your best interest to figure out what exactly is going on.

Why? I gave one example because it seemed to fit your "magic for financial gain" request. It's not the only time I've used a sigil and got results, and sigil magic isn't the only form of magic I use. My results are more than enough to encourage me to continue, but there's nothing which would satisfy your criterion for proof. Magic is a different way of working, a different mindset. I can think empirically if I want to, but when I started to get to grips with my practise I realised that it was rarely a useful approach when performing and analysing workings. So I use it when it's appropriate, and for magic it ain't (for me, at least. You've probably picked up by now that I'm stopping short of saying that my experience is universal).
 
 
illmatic
10:19 / 14.10.03
I quite like Thatsji’s scepticism, really, I think it’s far enough. I think one thing to remember is that unless you practice yourself, it might be possible to dismiss any evidence that’s presented to you so why not give it a go? I think sometimes (not all the time) sceptics, and even scientists trying to disprove theories, put themselves through some extraordinary mental contortions to avoid seeing what’s going on. The sceptical mindset (as embodied in “Skeptical Inquirer” and so on) is as much of a belief system as any other, in that it selects and excludes evidence.

The other thing I’d say is that magick is not infailable as technology based on scientific method is (or should be), despite Pete Caroll’s attempts to make it so (see Liber Kaos) – I’d rather be in a plane powered by a jet engine than the power of prayer to be honest. There’s seems to be some weird factor at work and the more you head and ego is tied up in something the less chance it has of working, this is commonly referred to as “lust of result” and is the reason given as to why you have to forget sigils after you’ve charged them (the hardest part of the working!). I think this is why divination works better than sigils and the like for me – something about not being directly involved a hard and fast result. Actually the one thing that pretty much works for me 100% is my I Ching practice. I suppose I could submit my diary to scrutiny by Thatsi over a few months and see how we get on, though I’m not sure if I want to share such a deeply personal part of my life. I’ll think about it.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:46 / 14.10.03
There is something distinctly odd about the premature and strong denial of the applicability of the scientific method. Let me try to explain.

Suppose you met a magickally inclined friend in a pub. Now suppose that the friend claims to have got free tickets to see Radiohead for the both of you. Great, you think. Can I see the tickets?, you innocently ask. If that friend starts going on about how the scientific method cannot be used to test magick and how western it is to insist on an inappropriate application of empirical testing, what would you think? That the mate didn't have the tickets, right?

To us empiricists, thats what it looks like happens here. Someone says, ok what *can* you do, what effect *does* magick have and the immediate response is a disavowal of science. It sounds...defensive, to say the least.

True, not everyone responds like that, but I think the criticism still stands.


You need proof before you'll admit the possibility of something existing?...

Could you quickly prove induction for me? The basis of scientific method, that the future will resemble the past? Without appealing to evidence from the past - Quantum


Firstly, I think Thjatsi already admitted the possibility of magick existing, but asked for some evidence to make that possibility something other than remote.

Secondly, and this is threadrot, we know that we disagree, but you misunderstand the role of induction in science. Which is why your point doesn't work.

The sceptical mindset (as embodied in “Skeptical Inquirer” and so on) is as much of a belief system as any other, in that it selects and excludes evidence. - Illmatic

As a sceptic myself, I find it hard to counter that charge, simply because one could dismiss any argument I had as selective and exclusive. I think that part of the problem is right here in this thread. I still have no idea what metaphysics would work for magickians. I know that the scientific method is considered flawed. But I'm not sure how you judge things magickally.

For instance, take ones standards as applied to magickal practice - subjective, experiential etc. Would you take a drug developed by a multinational drug company which used similar standards for testing? If not, then one has to ask whether it is all a bit too domain specific.
 
 
Quantum
13:25 / 14.10.03
Firstly, I think Thjatsi already admitted the possibility of magick existing, but asked for some evidence to make that possibility something other than remote.
Proof, not evidence- maybe I was being pedantic. I take it back.

Secondly, and this is threadrot, we know that we disagree, but you misunderstand the role of induction in science. Which is why your point doesn't work.
Care to start a thread on it? The role of induction in science I mean?

I still have no idea what metaphysics would work for magickians. I know that the scientific method is considered flawed. But I'm not sure how you judge things magickally.
You judge things magically mostly by intuition, this thread was an attempt to rationally illuminate the results of those intuitions to find commonality. It's not that scientific method is flawed, it is just isn't appropriate for some questions.

For instance, take ones standards as applied to magickal practice - subjective, experiential etc. Would you take a drug developed by a multinational drug company which used similar standards for testing? If not, then one has to ask whether it is all a bit too domain specific.
The standards applied to magical practice have more in common with Art than Science. You wouldn't hire an artist to safety test a drug, you wouldn't use magick to safety test a drug, because for things like drug testing you need reliability and reproducability- things that science is good at.
Look at it this way- you wouldn't frame Religion or Art purely in terms of the negation of science, Magic is equivalent.
You say it's domain specific- so is science, art etc. etc. we use different criteria to judge different domains.

It boils down to seeing one paradigm as the 'True' or 'Ultimate' view. If we can choose which domain to use for which task (poetry for expressing love, medicine for testing drugs etc.) then we see each as a different 'Hat', if we see them as different ways to look at the 'Real' world described by science/magic/religion (*delete as applicable) then they appear invalid or delusional.
 
 
EvskiG
20:01 / 14.10.03
Hmm. I've been a magical practitioner of sorts for roughly 15 years and -- despite what I'd consider some rousing successes -- I still have no proof, or even any firm belief, that magic works or is "real" in any sort of existential or empirically verifiable sense. I'm quite open to the possibility that I'm just deluding myself.

Let's look at a couple of successes and see whether they're empirically verifiable. In one, I conducted a ritual to help a friend (who had been unemployed for five years) find a job. Within a week of my ritual, she found a good full-time job. HOWEVER, she also had just recently completed an MBA, and I knew that she was actively interviewing for work. Did the magic work in an empirically verifiable sense? Is it possible to isolate the magic from the other variables involved?

Another example. In a legal matter, an opponent was sending me two or three harassing letters a day for several weeks. All of these had to be responded to in detail, which was a serious time drain. Finally, pissed off, I did a quick working to cause him to stop bothering me. The next day, the letters ceased entirely and did not continue for the remainder of the matter. HOWEVER, the matter was drawing to a close, so by that point my opponent might have exhausted all of what he wanted to say. Moreover, I later discovered that one of his partners had fallen ill around the same time, which might have required him to direct his efforts elsewhere. Did the magic work in an empirically verifiable sense here?

(Of course, I've also had some resounding failures where I tried to accomplish goals similar to those above and had absolutely nothing happen. Go figure.)

Magic also has produced some purely subjective experiences that I doubt can be empirically verified at all. For example, a visualization/chanting exercise once produced a strong and profound feeling of pulsing, rotating spheres (corresponding with certain chakras) within my body. Is that verifiable? Is it any different from the purely subjective ravings of a lunatic? I’m not sure.

Crowley (among others), claimed that his occultism used "the method of science, the aim of religion." In other words, he intended for occultists to attempt to keep their magical work as quasi-scientific as possible, detailing the variables involved, the precise work done, the result obtained, etc. I've tried to follow suit, but I've never had anything I'd consider scientifically objective proof of success. As a result, I remain agnostic about whether I'm actually accomplishing anything real or just engaging in a bit of mental masturbation and gameplay.

Reality-changing magic seems to work through coincidence. Do a working for money, bump into an old friend on the street who repays an old loan. Do a working to encourage romance, meet a beautiful woman in a bar. I'd be quite willing to go to a casino, though, and see if I had any kind of remarkable success in a game of pure, isolated chance.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply