| |
|
the Internet is a far superior model of telepathy than is straight publishing, and there's no editorial middlemen acting as the spiritual medium.
I dunno about better. More democratic, maybe. & editorial middlemen don't tend to interfere much with the message (the bunny w/the blue #5 on his back), but to help fine tune it -- twiddle with the frequency, if you like. It's the market interference I'd worry about, and that's as much a factor on the internet as in publishing. At any rate, Stephen King has more opportunity in time & space to transmit his message into people's minds than most ranters on the internet.
What about talking to people? That's surely the ultimate telepathy
At first I agreed with you, but I started thinking about how I think when I talk to someone versus how I think when I'm reading. Usually in a conversation, I'm more concerned with reading body language & getting my own message across. I rarely get a clear image, like that bunny with the blue #5 on its back, in a conversation. This kind of transmission works better with a passive frame of mind, such as reading or being part of an audience. And, of course, Stephen King reaches a wider audience, in time and space, than most public speakers.
So, is this proof of magic? Well, it could all be explained by sociology & psychology, and maybe biochemistry or something. But those sciences, resting on the assumptions I mentioned earlier, are rational in their construction but magical in their foundations. Now that I think of it, it's probably a good practice to consider magick the way scientists consider 'science' -- that is, NOT to believe in it. Rather, never to believe dogmatically in laws or results, but to leave everything open to question. Believe in method, in process. |
|
|
