From tyagi@bjt.net Wed Nov 27 07:23:05 1996 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com ([165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA29494 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:12:19 -0500 Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA07069; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:59:09 -0800 Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA22535; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:51:28 -0800 From: tyagi@bjt.net (Tyagi Nagasiva) Message-Id: <199611271051.CAA22535@kudo20.kudonet.com> Subject: Gnostik/9611.sci-mgk.tn To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:51:28 -0800 (PST) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O >From tyagi@kudo Wed Nov 27 02:07:21 1996 To: tyagi@kudo Path: kudo!tyagi Date: 27 Nov 96 08:40:52 GMT Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.moderated,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.religion.wicca Approved: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com Subject: Re: Psychoactives, Magick and the Scientific Method Followup-To: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi References: <19961120163700.LAA18109@ladder01.news.aol.com> <56vo93$bj1@work2.e-z.net> From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) content-length: 6558 49961127 AA1 Hail Satan! (followups targetted) pstuart@aol.com: #>When I talk about science, I am ...talking ...about scientific method. #>Closer to the ideal that you pose in Scire as point 6d, science leading #>to gnosis.... to wit: $ 6. Consolidate data (within or outside worldview) (C) $ 6d. Given enough experience which will not satifactorily fit within a $ worldview: $ $ Knowledge systems are left behind for mysticism, which brings about $ direct experience (Truth). $ $ [This is the ultimate goal to which Science leads: Gnosis, or $ knowledge that is experiential rather than simply intellectual.] #>I have no need to conform to or impress an academic review board, #>so my experimental work, being originally derived for my own gnosis, #>is for my own use, though if I come up with anything interesting, #>I publish it. duo@e-z.net (Gratuitous Pseudonym): #...If your work conforms to scientific method, it should be #understandable and replicable by those who make up a review board #for any of the appropriate scientific journals. this is strictly true among those who share the paradigm from which the scientific experiment proceeds, yet within the discipline of subjective science, such a board is seldom come by, and the review need only proceed by oneself and one's intimates who could adequately reflect upon its significance and internal coherency. #Submitting one's findings to peer review is not kowtowing to the #Establishment, it is a means of cross-checking one's methods and #results with other trained individuals who can give one feedback #on design flaws or varying results. this is of course true, though it is precisely the reason that adepts are warned to secrecy concerning their workings in that speaking with those outside one's working paradigm may lead to confusing input. the competent mage can indeed utilize comparison betwixt hir work and that of others as a satisfactory filtration. some caution should be exercized in such a comparison however, as one would engage in the review of one's art. #If no appropriate peer review group exists for the scientific #investigation of certain magical effects, then we should get #busy and make one. your application is not that of my standard. you would turn the glorious circus of magick into the side-show of the Skeptic's Society. I'll move to a different tent, thanks. #>Since I doubt an ultimate TRUTH, doubt is the nature of obtaining just That. #>the test of scientific "results" are, for me, their usefulness. efficacy: the standard review of the value of rite. #>Will action A produce result B? If I repeat action A #>in the same way, will it produce result B in the same way? often I don't even bother with particular results per se, but whether the rite will have the *intensity* of effect which I desire, especially on a consistent basis. not even this, but the *medium*, the approach, the NATURE OF VISION do I watch in the construction of rituals and attendant effects. eventually my vision is clarified and I have little need for such 'justification' or 'review' excepting acute or exploratory ventures. #Truth and utility are not synonymous.... yes, and through a maximized utility may we may approach the ultimate. #>Anyway... I think that magickal operations in the traditional sense are #>probably not truly reproduceable, the form and the effect are determined within the construct of scientific experiment when discussing magick. one only need understand the relation between art and magick to see this. the artist follows an intuitive sense of *results*, maximizing maturation along the trajectory of gnosis. #>HOWEVER, it is possible to create reproduceable magickal experiments, #>IMO, that conform to scientific method. of course, depending on how one defines this last. if one utilizes the myopic version of modern Science I am unsure of its value. #>...you have to define parameters much more closely than the vague #>terms used by most magickians. I would agree, though suggest that this is usually constructed of a mythic candor and deep personal significance largely irrelevant to those who are not performing similar works. again compare the ways that artists work together. #...The key to investigating magical phenomena scientifically is the #development of operational definitions. Ambiguous terms give #ambiguous results. this was the reason I constructed _Liber Scire_, and the ONLY reason: to formulate a systemic language whereby operational definitions of value to the mage might be codified and used in the comparison of coordinated magical work. I am not sure that any system of knowledge can be said to be 'complete' or 'ultimately true'. #Poetry, and most other forms of art, use depth of meaning to transport the #subject beyond simple one-to-one correspondences. Magick does this also. #The investigation of magick is not the same as its performance, though. a powerful magical spell is as much exploration as it is activity. those who merely 'perform' their spell will obtain nothing except the possible initiation of others. #Just because a poet uses language in an ambiguous way does not mean #that we cannot devise a useful dictionary of the language. 'ambiguity' is insufficient to communicate the adeptship of mystic poesy. a 'dictionary' comprised of mystical terminology will, as do the attempts in hermeneutics of ancient Chinese and Egyptian, yield a variety of meaning, exemplified by the number of translations of _Tao Teh Ching_. it cannot approach the type of analytical specificity of modern scientific endeavors (nor would this necessarily be desirable). #>I would prefer to use EEG equipment to find such markers, #>but since I don't have access to that... I have to use #>perceptual observations. the EEG is likely too abstract an indicator of the approach to the gnosis. one might as well look at statistics on car washes to determine what the weather was like over the past week. it may correlate in some way, but there are more direct means. #That lack can be corrected with a little creative thinking and a #willingness to find some partners in your inquiries. too much reliance on partnerships may stifle the work. one may fruitfully proceed with careful notes for reflection and sincere self-observation (thus the benefit of a Magical Record, among other good reasons to maintain one). this is also one function of the Book of Shadows among Wiccans. nigris (333) tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com ----- End of forwarded message from nigris (333) -----