Welcome, toadchrist.
Wrote Better the Fool You know:
quote:"Your presupposing faith in Logic. Logic is not something to be placing to much faith in. Buddhists found that out a couple of thousand years ago. Not that its not useful, its just that its another belief structure and as such not independent of the system it is seeking to analyse. Also what does a result either way actually prove? Not much, and if it does prove anything that proof is certainly not set in stone.
Okay, when I think of logic, I think two things directly stem from it: first that any model to describe the universe ought to be self-consistent, and second, it should be possible to think about the model. So a model that asks for a state of nomindedness before one may be able to understand it is not what I would think of as a logical model, nor would I think of it as illogical.
But a cognitive model really ought to be self-consistent. This doesn't mean that several models which contradict each other might not be uselful. I personally think of the world in terms of several models that contradict each other. In several of these, there are gods; in a few, there are no gods. But each of them is consistent in itself. If I discover inconsistency, my psyche kicks it out.
The scientific method, at its core, has a single goal: to explain our shared subjective experiences in a self-consistent way. Scientists may color this goal with any number of additions, but this, to me, is the essential ingredient to science.
I don't have a deep enough undertanding of magic to make any kind of jusgement about essential magic. Somehow, I doubt this is even possible. There are too many brands and variations and I haven't been immersed in the certainty of magic my whole life as I have in the certainty of science.
But I doubt that any model of magic is not self-consistent. You may, in chaos magic, hold one belief system at once and then change to another; each belief-system making logical sense in itself.
But magic is something more than this, for it is a tool; not simply a model. And this tool requires each and every one of us to be skeptics. It demands of everyone careful practise and patience before we can break the bonds of the societal consciousness that tells us magic isn't real. That consciousness says this: That if it cannot be explained, it doesn't happen; that if it cannot be quantified, we don't really understand it. This is, of course, illogical. But it is the way people often think.
Here's an example: go to a friend and tell them that once, you peed off an airplane wing at 1300 feet. See if they believe you. Then tell them that the wing wasn't attached to the airplane and you were on a mountain. They'll probably believe you, then. But it still won't be true. (Or, I don't know. Maybe it will)
When I think of this, I can understand how sigil magic might work, or how a divination might work. These things are foreign to me and very difficult to believe, but they still intrigue me.
Back kobol's triangle of faith, reason, and imagination. I'm not entirely sure what faith is, and I often think that two different people mean very different things when they say it. But I can't see how imagination would in any way contradict logic. If I have a wild imagination and I go on thinking about a number of things that are wholly illogical, this may be very useful. But, if this is the case, it is, in fact, logical for me to have these illogical thoughts. Reason would dictate that I continue to think them. If these thoughts became harmful to me and those around me, reason would dictate that I try to stop having these thoughts.
[though balloon]i admit that i am a bit frustrated trying to see the world through tht eyes of a magician. when it is suggested that logic might be incomplete, i would always agree, but when it is suggested that logic is flawed, i will feel a need to don my warrior garb and defend logic. this is not to say that i must be right. it is out of instinct that i do this.[/thought balloon] |
