BARBELITH underground
 

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


Why Magic?

 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
sn00p
13:29 / 12.06.06
I’m hesitant to say NLP and magic are the same thing. If you took magic and applied all the over rationalization, jargon and emphasis on theories instead of model's, then you'd end up with NLP. What I’m trying to say is NLP is magic but s**t.

Try predicting the weather with NLP and see how far that gets you.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:07 / 12.06.06
Is there anything 'magic' has got that NLP hasn't got better?

Hello *headdesk*, my old friend.
 
 
Quantum
15:59 / 12.06.06
Hello *headdesk* my old friend
Ive come to *smak* with you again,
Because a vision softly *smak*ing,
Left its bruise while I was *smak*ing,
And the vision that was *smak*ed in my brain
Still remains

*smak*

Sorry. Perfectly valid question. NLP is great. Magic could be just NLP in costume, but with breathing techniques. Or there could be more to it.
I think there's more to it.
 
 
Quantum
16:04 / 12.06.06
(rot) Simon and Garfunkel espouse city magic-

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, the words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whispered in the sounds of silence.


/rot
 
 
Ticker
17:39 / 12.06.06
I use science and apply it to magic because that which is not science is faith. Faith is believing in something with no evidence.

The scientific method is a process. If you stick it on a pedestal and say Science is better than Magic, you are using a faith based system of beliefs and entering out of the world of scientific research and into a place of codifying science as a religion.

The Scientific Method

If you apply the scientific method to the study of magic you can get an entire range of results some of which contain evidence that 'something' is repeatable happening, but hey guess what? As scientists we can say we're not quite sure how everything works...yet.

As people engaged in magical work, we probably would not be doing it if we hadn't been presented with evidence of it being being proven productive, to our individual satisfaction.

The scientific method does not on its own nullify the existence of magic, or remove the possibility of Divinities or other spiritual realms.

a fairly fun read on the subject is the book 'Spook' by Mary Roach.

"Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is." C.G. Jung
 
 
sn00p
18:09 / 12.06.06
I don't think he was saying science is better than magic, as it's like saying wood is better than television, but that if you don't apply science to magic (I.e experimentation) you'll gloss over you're failures and inconcistencies with faith.

If you're getting repeatable results with a magical method, that means it works.
 
 
Professor Silly
18:36 / 12.06.06
I realize I'm about to once again reveal my traditionalist bias towards magick...but here goes:

Why Magick? one word: transcendence

To me the only relevant motivation for using ritual is to (in Judeo-Christian terms) bring my soul closer to God. The question "why magick" should ideally lead to the same answer as "why yoga" or "why meditation." As Levi pointed out, anything else is black magic.

I know, I know...traditionalist vs. modern chaos and all that....
 
 
Ticker
18:40 / 12.06.06
but that if you don't apply science to magic (I.e experimentation) you'll gloss over you're failures and inconcistencies with faith.

I'm fairly certain that many traditions which practice magic have room for both experimentation and faith.

I understand that for some people faith is synonymous with blind allegiance to an entire ideology but for others it does not preclude trial and error or the ability to apply judgment.

Many are the voices which claim there is no room for faith in science, but how many of us have actually bothered to conduct the experiments to confirm for ourselves certain scientific facts? How many people take it on faith that water is indeed Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that we really are in a heliocentric solar system?

Having faith does not mean you are automatically stupid, intentionally ignorant, or conditioned to dismiss facts. Being scientific requires flexibility to respond to the results of experimentation, which may include the effects of faith.
 
 
sn00p
19:50 / 12.06.06
I don't think scientific idea's require any faith, just the sense of rationality which makes us fundamentaly different from a snake or a jellyfish.

Mysticism and faith seem to stem from a lack of understanding, but instead of saying "i don't understand" someone says "I do understand" (but they don't.

I think the whole faith vs science thing is a much larger thread, and we may end up hijacking this one, and im not entirely sure wether this is on topic or not anymore, so feel free to delete this post.
 
 
SteppersFan
20:44 / 12.06.06
I think the whole faith vs science thing is a much larger thread, and we may end up hijacking this one, and im not entirely sure wether this is on topic or not anymore, so feel free to delete this post.
Or all three .

Feel free to examine and possibly bump one of the multitude of Temple threads looking at science and magic:

Try some of these, assuming I haven't borked this link...
 
 
jihadreflection
00:20 / 13.06.06
Snoop: When I mentioned NLP I meant as a method. You could use NLP to predict the whether if you took the NLP techniques and applied them to enchantment/divination*
Well I’m mixing NLP with enchantment and divination myself at the moment. It seems like it’s the one thing missing from the chaos magic model. An explanation for the internal states.
So I’m playing around with that.

As to transcendence or the quest for a true will, authentic self. I simply find no value in believing in such things.

So the rest of the techniques of magic can be covered by NLP. (Or Milton hypnosis, General semantics, etceteras.)

Except for the breathing techniques which seem to cause physiological changes after an extended period.

Why use NLP instead of Abra merlin or Golden dawn stuff?

Well firstly I come from the chaos magic side of things, I don’t hold with transcendence and those methods are systems of attainment. Yet I find it useful to be able to change my story, internal states. For pleasure. So I need a moral free system. Traditional magic is soaked in morality and so I don’t use it.

I use the scientific method in this because it’s useful to identify causes. Specifically I use Operationalism, inductive, abductive and deductive logic. Mostly inductive because from my point of view the models of science are just stories and I don’t really need a model a lot of the time. Either something works to my satisfaction or it doesn’t.

* I use both these terms in Pete Carrolls sense.
 
 
illmatic
07:03 / 13.06.06
So the rest of the techniques of magic can be covered by NLP.

No they can't.
 
 
ghadis
07:22 / 13.06.06
jihadreflection,

Perhaps if you had said,

'So the rest of the techniques of chaos magic can be covered by NLP.'

i could see where you are coming from and agree with you.

As you say,

'Well firstly I come from the chaos magic side of things, I don’t hold with transcendence and those methods are systems of attainment.'

so you clearly identify as a chaos magician. The thing is that many people see chaos magic, as wopnderful as it can sometimes be, having many, many limitations and ommisions that don't allow it to come anywhere near as fulfilling and meaningful as other Traditions.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:38 / 13.06.06
As to transcendence or the quest for a true will, authentic self. I simply find no value in believing in such things.

Define transcendence.

Define what you think the terms "true will" and "authentic self" mean.

If you see no value in believing in the value of such things, I can only assume you have a playschool level of understanding of what you are talking about, or you are a pretty insufferable character. Which is it?

Are you really only in it for the money, cash, hoe's? Is there absolutely no part of your interest and involvement in this stuff that is geared towards trying to become the best human being that you can possibly be and live according to the truest expression of your own individual nature? Are you really such a horrific ego-monster that you can't see any problems in any of the statements you have made above?
 
 
illmatic
08:47 / 13.06.06
Look, Gypsy, Pete Carroll says those things aren't true.

That's all you need to know.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:34 / 13.06.06
I don't see how NLP might let me reach across an ocean to help someone with hir health problems. For example.
 
 
Quantum
10:17 / 13.06.06
Specifically I use Operationalism, inductive, abductive and deductive logic. Mostly inductive jihadreflection

Here's a bit of Philosophy for you. Induction is basically a belief that the future will resemble the past. If you've seen a million sunrises you can assert the sun will rise because it always has in the past.
Why should the future resemble the past, why should induction continue to be an effective tool? Because it always has in the past and so it will in the future. That's the problem of induction (thank you Hume) and it means that Induction is a belief you have no rational grounds for, it's an article of Faith*. You have faith in the inductive method, the experimental model, it strikes you as fundamentally true and beyond doubt despite the lack of proof.

Magic is a lot more than NLP, because it affects the external world and AFAIK NLP is entirely internal, changing your perceptions and behaviors rather than summoning wind or enhancing fertility.

*faith is usually defined as believing for certain something that isn't proven to be true, thus the 'proof denies faith' argument
 
 
E. Coli from the Milky Way
11:05 / 13.06.06
Hi, someone says above that magic maybe NPL plus breathing techniques, and someone claims that it can be more. Perhaps the link to all this is the work of Stanilav Grof, that has developed that thing of the "Holotropic Breathing", wich i supoose it has been used on gnostic societies end things like that. The reality that depics Grof work is, well, .... it's magical.
 
 
Quantum
11:41 / 13.06.06
someone claims that it can be more

More accurately, several people have said it definitely is more than NLP and breathing.
 
 
SteppersFan
11:58 / 13.06.06
Jihad:
Well I’m mixing NLP with enchantment and divination myself at the moment. It seems like it’s the one thing missing from the chaos magic model. An explanation for the internal states.
Since you identify as a chaote, I'm interested that you use the term "chaos magic model" in the singular. It's also interesting that you think the one thing missing from CM is an explanation for "the internal states".

Cos, you know, I was sort of under the impression there was both model agnosticism and model multiplicity in CM. And that it was kind of grounded in "internal", perceptual mechanic.

Maybe you want to expand on that, or re-position your comments? Bearing in mind there's one or two people here who've pretty much been around the houses with chaos.
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:43 / 13.06.06
So spirits are not real, they are just thought forms and mental projections? You can replace the word spirits with god if you like.
 
 
Unconditional Love
18:39 / 13.06.06
This is my point which i will try to make more clear, at the heart of most magical/spirtual/religous traditions you will find the idea of one/none/two creation giving principles, mostly personified as gods/goddesses.

Is it really that easy to cast thousands of years of tradition aside and say, well its all in me head innit mate?

Also is that not to seek to invalidate all forms of 'primitive' thought which do not subscribe to modern notions of largely western views of reality, or those that cannot be forced to fit into western shoes rather than walking on the souls of there own feet?
 
 
jihadreflection
21:41 / 13.06.06
Quantum: I’m aware of the ‘problem of induction’. I use it as a model (epistemological model) to calculate the probability of something occurring. I don’t have faith that it will occur.
As to the effects on the external world, I mentioned my view on that in an earlier post.

Steppersfan: I use CM model to denote the mechanism of: enchantment, intent, symbolise, altered state, detachment. The basic sigil method as it were.
In the hopes of making my sorcery more efficient in causing external effects I found it pertinent to try and measure or at least find some model that can explain what is meant by symbolism, intent etceteras, in relation to internal states.
The ‘model agnostic’ side of the CM originates (in my opinion) in the work of Nietzsche, Stirner, Korzbynski, you find it expressed as Perspectivism sometimes in the more academic field of philosophy. For me this Perspectivism applies to utilising models based upon how useful they are (some models do seem more useful than others, even if only to me).
There are different brands of model agnosticism though. Mine’s a particularly ego centric one.

Wolfangel888: Whatever other people believe is there business. I happily cast away thousands of years of tradition. Why should my views invalidate any one else’s views.
When summoning spirits I pretend they are real because it’s cool.

Ghadis: I don’t know if I identify as a Chaos magician per say. I’m a perspectivist who practices some of the techniques associated with magic. So that could make me a chaos magician. I guess people who find meaning in ancient traditions find meaning in them. That’s cool with me. The idea of traditional systems having more value fill stop seems to me to be synonymous with the idea that there is a path human beings should follow. (see below)

Gypsy: I am indeed a horrific ego monster. Your statement unfortunately makes assumptions about the nature of egoism based upon the acquirement of bitches and money. If you find egoism wrong and the value of ‘some true individual expression’ as good. Well I’m happy for you. If you need to put down people who hold different views as having ‘a playschool understanding.’ Then go for it. Might I suggest that it’s a playschool understanding according to your model of the world and the values you hold dear.
 
 
E. Coli from the Milky Way
22:16 / 13.06.06
most magical/spirtual/religous traditions you will find the idea of one/none/two creation giving principles, mostly personified as gods/goddesses

i've recently readed, i think it was in capra's tao of physics, that ying/yang symbol came from the taoist's observations of a shadow casting along the day on a mountain (that it would be a cosmological explanation of dualism)

Well, my question is: if we live in a planet with two or more suns (in wich shadows casted in mountains would have a more difficult pattern than ying/yang), how our thinking would be?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:01 / 14.06.06
If you need to put down people who hold different views as having ‘a playschool understanding.’ Then go for it. Might I suggest that it’s a playschool understanding according to your model of the world and the values you hold dear.

No, you just haven't evidenced a particularly sophisticated understanding of the things you are dismissing and I am calling you on it. You come across like a child throwing toys out of a pram without giving any real sense that you know why the toys were there in the first place or why you chose to throw them out - aside from the whims of a monstrous ego. I would personally criticise this, as I think the ego is a fairly shaky foundation on which to build a magical practice or worldview. The onus is on you to defend your position, really. Your response above amounts to: "Well... That's just your way of thinking about things! So there!" and is perhaps not the strongest refutation of the playschool accusations that have been leveled at you.

Might I suggest that you form a stronger argument to defend your position, rather than avoiding the meat of the criticism completely and telling me I just have "different views" from you. Obviously I do. Quite a few other people in this thread have also expressed a similar level of migraine inducing despair at the seemingly ill-thought out content of your above posts. You are not doing a very convincing job of conveying any sense that you've really put a lot of your own thought into any of these perspectives you are parading. A lot of it has the ghastly stench of second-hand received information that you have adopted from other sources, be they Peter Carroll, Nietzsche, or any of the other weighty names with which you have peppered the above posts.

Give me a single good reason why you have decided that there is no currency whatsoever in the notions of a Thelemic True Will, or the idea of the Great Work as it appears in the bulk of western magic, or the broader concept of elevating the human organism to a higher state - whatever that might mean - which appears in the occult traditions of virtually every culture in the world in various forms. Or even just demonstrate that you have a fully developed understanding of what these things mean, and explain the reasoning behind why you have chosen to reject them.

I will probably still disagree with you, and challenge any holes that I might find in that reasoning. But that is, after all, the purpose of this forum. By exposing our ideas about magic to our peers and contemporaries we get an opportunity to refine our understanding and look at our accrued raft of theories and assumptions from outwith the limiting perspective of our own ego.

If you're not going to do that, if you just want to walk into the room and make huge sweeping statements about magic, but you don't actually have the balls to intelligently defend your statements against the inevitable criticism that will ensue. Then go for it. Go for your fucking life, mate. You will just come off looking like yet another occupant of the magical special bus. An overcrowded, knackered old vehicle that should be driven off the road.

Alternatively, you could start a new thread that questions the value of "The Great Work", or the Thelemic True Will, or the idea that magic should involve some attempt to develop ourselves beyond the whims of the ego. Lay out your stall, explain your position, show that you know what you are talking about, that this is something you have put a lot of thought into, that you have a really convincing, intelligent argument backing up your statements on this. It could be a really great thread. Yeah, your ideas will come under fire, but any really solid idea will be forged in the flames of debate, not destroyed. If you really believe this 100%, why not put your money where your mouth is? It's your call.
 
 
Quantum
09:42 / 14.06.06
I use it as a model (epistemological model) to calculate the probability of something occurring. I don’t have faith that it will occur.

My point is that you have faith in the principle that allows you to calculate that probability, the principle of induction. You have faith that method will continue to work, and your calculations will be an accurate guide to future events. Despite the lack of proof.
 
 
SteppersFan
11:45 / 14.06.06
Jihad:
There are different brands of model agnosticism though. Mine’s a particularly ego centric one.
So, do you still think there's one single CM model? And do you still think CM is missing an "internal" angle - given that you're positing you version of CM model agnosticism as "ego centric"? And if your model agnosticism is "ego centric", does that mean it's no longer... err... model agnostic?

Gypsy:
you could start a new thread that questions the value of "The Great Work", or the Thelemic True Will, or the idea that magic should involve some attempt to develop ourselves beyond the whims of the ego... It could be a really great thread.
I guess a good theoretical foundation for that position might be LaVey's Satanic Bible. Cracking read for the young wannabe occultist with more black clothes than sense. The CoS had some good people in it back in the day.
 
 
jihadreflection
13:37 / 14.06.06
Quantum: I wouldn’t say I have faith per say. I use the method even though it may fail. It’s just a good method (so far). Though you’re right in saying that it could fail and then I’d be proper f—ked.

Steppersfan: I do think there is a single chaos magic technique for enchantment. You can use a multitude of models to explain that technique though.
In response to the second question.
I don’t think anyone can be a model agnostic. You can use it as a framework with which to evaluate your own ideas about yourself and the models you are using. If you break from the idea of one truth, one model, then how do you judge something? What is your criteria?
My criteria is how useful it is to me, this doesn’t mean I attribute absolute truth to the model.
What I meant by internal was a description of the actual states involved. Check out an NLP site on the sub modalities for example. That’s along the lines I was thinking of.

Gyspy: Ask in a civilised manner and maybe I’ll give you a civilised response. Or are you to much of a retard and/or baby to do that?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:47 / 14.06.06
It'd be interesting, I think, to "unpack" the concept of "the Great Work" and how it appears in various contexts - from Thelema, Alchemy, Hermeticism and Christianity, for example. However, I'd have to admit that neither "the Great Work" nor Crowley's concept of the True Will have really ever appealed to me.
 
 
EvskiG
13:57 / 14.06.06
Same here.

Interesting question about the Great Work, though, and what it means to different people, traditions, or techniques.

Does it mean attempting to attain Samadhi or Enlightenment? Union with god? Sainthood? Knowledge and conversation of one's Holy Guardian Angel? Obtaining the Stone of the Wise and the Medicine of Metals? Perfecting all aspects of one's personal human condition (physical/mental/spiritual)? And how many of these are synonymous?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:02 / 14.06.06
That's about as civilised as you are going to get.

If you jump into a thread with sweeping statements about magic that you are unprepared and seemingly ill-equipped to back up when called to unpack them, then I'm going to give you short shrift.

I asked if you were capable of demonstrating more than a playground level of understanding about the subject you were dismissing and if you could construct a convincing argument. You responded by calling me a retard. I guess that would be a decisive "No" then.
 
 
rising and revolving
14:14 / 14.06.06
I'm not sure you actually get NLP or Chaos Magic very deeply, given the manners in which you're expressing their conflict. Those conflicts are simply in the manner you're framing your position - not in the actual nature of the disciplines.

If it's not a rude question, how long have you been actively practicing chaos magic? NLP? What is an "ego" actually? How does it relate to the subconcious mind, in your opinion? Does your model of NLP even allow for a concious/subconcious split? If not, how does your Milton stuff work?

I'm very interested in your experiences utilising the techniques of NLP - but I am left a little underwhelmed by your approach. In my experience, the first test of competence is that one has internalised the principles and can explain them, in their own terms, with ease. Your progression from 'internal states => submodalities => look it up if you want to understand' fails to evoke confidence.

Now, I'm but a journeyman when it comes to NLP and magic - however, I've got interesting things to say about both that don't require an appeal to authority. I'm very interested in other points of view coming from similar backgrounds - so, how much have you got under your belt? What have you learned? I'm interested - and not to simply bash your ego.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:21 / 14.06.06
Jihad reflection: I put my hand up to being out of order with you here and apologise for that. It just does my head in when people show up here with fairly aggressive dogmatic positions on certain aspects of magic, but don't seem willing to engage with any criticism of those statements or invitations to unpack what they mean or where they are coming from. We get quite a lot of that round here, and I've grown a bit conditioned towards going for the argumentative jugular at the first sign of it. Which is not really very helpful. I apologise for off-loading a lot of my general growing frustration with barbelith onto you, and hope that you will stick around and contribute to a thread on this notion of the "Great Work", its various interpretations, and its perceived currency or lack thereof.
 
 
Professor Silly
15:07 / 14.06.06
I can understand why some people would take a disliking to the ideas of transcendence and spiritual growth--in today's world of eroding religious confidence anything that seems spiritual must be suspect.

Still, according to "The Sacred Magic of Abra-melin the Mage" one must invoke their "holy guardian angel" in order to command the legions of devils and gain all those cool comic-book powers. Of course there's the fine print that always seems to appear when POWERS enters the discussion (that once one reaches such a level, the powers themselves will seem worthless when compared with the inner peace that results).

I think history should be the guide. How many transcendental magicians can be named vs. ego-drivin magicians? In the former I can name many: Crowley, Blavatsky, Levi, Kelly, Dee, Mohammed, Molenis, Pythagoris, the Christ, King Solomon, Moses. I personally cannot name a single ego-drivin anti-trancendental magician from history...can anyone else?

I'd say Anton LeVey, but he wasn't really much of a magician--his rituals were written and performed by Kenneth Anger, a student of Crowley's. LeVey was really just a good salesman/carnival barker. (Of course, I'd rather not tell my card-carrying Church of Satan boss/teacher that!)
 
 
SteppersFan
15:09 / 14.06.06
Gypsy:
I apologise for off-loading a lot of my general growing frustration with barbelith onto you
You weren't that bad . In fact you weren't that unreasonable in your actual questions at all, just a bit bad tempered. FWIW I think B is increasingly unfrustrating at the moment.

Who's going to start an "Unpacking the idea of the Great Work" thread - Trouser?
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply