Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,sci.skeptic,alt.pagan.magick,alt.religion.wicca,alt.magick,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic Subject: Philosophy of Magic (was Proof of Magic...) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 140 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8b0o7j$h8v@bolt.sonic.net> References: <8avchg$46c@bolt.sonic.net> <38D37E3F.43BA9925@NOSPAMsilliness.8m.com> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:16:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 953410609 208.201.224.36 (Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:16:49 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:16:49 PST Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:22125 sci.skeptic:399364 alt.pagan.magick:21804 alt.religion.wicca:291182 alt.magick:183783 alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic:20567 50000318 IVom "Bill" : >>> I just have been looking for evidence thaqt is undeniable to support >>> the thought that the stuff works but have found none. nagasiva yronwode: >> there is no such evidence. one may always find a way to justify denying >> what one wishes to doubt. there is no way around it. you can set your >> blinders (or spectacles) at the strength you prefer. nobody else will >> be able to affect them outside of a cult-affiliation in which you have >> been brainwashed. Dave Leckie : >For those of you Math buffs out there, it's kind of like an Axiom... you >have to accept it as true... there's no proof for it, just accept it. >Then everything else will make sense. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this. this seems to me a facet of theurgy, in that faith becomes the precursor to success. not only does this lead to a destruction of empiricism and graduated development of magical ability, it allows grey areas of charlatanry and self-deception which have resulted in the tarnishing of occultism for centuries. I have been insufficiently clear in my assertion, it seems. I was NOT making a comment about magic, but about the nature of "proof" and the way which "skeptics" are prone to proceed to evaluate a phenomenon which may in part depend upon the environment of observation. the study of religion and magic are both degenerated by either a strong opposition to them or a fervent belief in them. the former leads to ignorance of the facets of value and rationality that may be present and the latter leads one to overlook the presence of charlatanry. compare the faith healer who "removes the illness" with a kind of miraculous 'surgery' where some palmed item is said to have been taken from the patient and, strangely, the patient actually recovers. the cynic (who refer to themselves quite often as 'skeptics') will dismiss the entirety as a fraud merely because there was deception involved. the true scientist will keep the deception in mind and try to find out WHY THE HEALING WORKED and whether this might be used in other contexts. the reason that I do not agree with your assessment is that it does not accord with my EXPERIENCE of magical activities and objects. I do not find that belief is necessary, that anything more than a suspension of DISbelief is required to observe the phenomenon with an open mind, concluding neither one way nor the other in the course of the evaluation merely for the purpose of 'making it so'. >Do you seriously think Mathematics would work without the Well-Ordering >Principle or Pigeonhole theory? I don't think I understand this. mathematics is an axiomatic system of symbolic logic, not a symbolic system for affecting the physical world. it is one thing to understand that, starting with certain axioms and 'articles of faith', if you like, we wind up with meaningful discernments about the relationships between numbers that can be applied in engineering in fruitful ways. it is quite another to suggest that magic must proceed from a similar origin and along the same lines. magic isn't just an intellectual and symbolic subject area. its components are often presumed to function WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF BELIEF IN ITS EFFECTIVENESS. >The same goes for Magick. You can't expect anything groundbreaking in >your studies if you don't believe it. how would you prevent self-deception based on this belief, then? why not believe in some fanciful god that will solve all of your problems for you and then have this happen? why not use 'the power of positive thinking' to effectively wish your problems away? I've been thinking about this and talking with sri catyananda about this philosophic aspect of magic and am willing at this point to venture into some kind of analysis of the metaphysics, perhaps usable to defuse squabbles in the alt.magick.* newsgroups: discernment 1: whether the mage has in-dwelling ability/power this includes whether or not the mage has become powerful through belief in the formula or phenomena of magic (as above), whether she had to undergo magical adventures in order to secure hir ability (as the Hermetics), whether she was born with these abilities and always had them available, or was born with them and had to nurture their potential. the extremes of this discernment seem to be -- the temporary mage, who, through luck or artifice, obtains ability and power beyond the ordinary through a specific choice (as to believe), experience (as through consumption of a potion), or by acquisition of a particular item (which has limited affect in time and space, as a ring that allows a single magical feat) -- the permanent mage, born with magical abilities fully developed at birth (or before), who is always capable of using them without recharge or recompense discernment 2: whether magical objects are powerful themselves this similarly spans the formal existence of the object or its substantial materials, and may even depend on whether we attribute some kind of sentience to it. the decision depends on whether the object is seen to have power because of the material of which it is composed, that it grew or was made in a certain way, that it has been acclimitized (either on the intention of the object or its fashioner) to specific aims, has later been empowered with its reputed ability, or has in some way made itself magical. the extremes of this discernment seem to be -- the object which has power for but a brief period, perhaps as a result of being provided this power by choice or action (as with the blessing of a weapon or tool that has limited effect in time) -- the object forged at the beginning of time or emerging from the cosmos as a powerful source of magical effect, never waning and a virtual reservoir or battery of power these parameters seem to form the general outline of debate about magical philosophy, and it may be possible (perhaps some will attempt it here?) to taxonomize the various strata of occultists and their tendencies in formal ways so as to understand them and how the arguments between them arise and of what they consist. blessed beast! nagasiva -- mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired