Current Theories - Nature of the Universe - Long Message
Galadriel
first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe. Our current
working model goes something like this:-
The Conscious Universe as it exists now developed from the 'Big Bang'. That
was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
unconscious) expanded itself. If one were to look upon this UM within the
existence of the Universe one could see it as a kind of Amoeba with a cell
nucleus somewhere within its massive expanding living matter. This matter
contains varying degrees of matter concentrations throughout its being to
account for, amongst other things, our different states of matter (solid,
liquid, gas). Some concentrations of matter contain conscious awareness and
some do not. So on a mundane level a human being does whereas a rock does
not, though they are both 'floating' within the delicate liquid-like matter
that exudes from the central UM.
The thing that makes something aware can be said to be down to a fine thread
that connects it to the UM. I guess it is somewhat similar to the idea of
the silver cord. The point is that this thread enters the physical body and
endows it with conscious awareness. The point at which it enters the body
becomes the boundary between the conscious and unconscious mind and is made
up of various mechanisms to prevent us from seeing beyond the boundary.
Hypnotherapists call it the critical censor. If we could see beyond this
boundary with our conscious mind we would be able to KNOW the meaning of
existence We would also know that we are not actually individual beings but
are in fact isolated components of the UM. All our attained knowledge and
experience is passed back through the physical boundary along the thread to
the UM.
When it is time for our physical body to die, the thread of awareness pulls
away from the body like a tentacle and is reabsorbed into the UM. If the UM
decides to insert the thread into another physical body before it has be
reabsorbed we end up with what could be called reincarnation, and that being
may be able to remember something of its past life. If we can learn to reach
beyond the boundary we may be able to tap into the UM and attain any
knowledge or experience that it possesses.
So basically we are not individuals but are in fact all part of one
consciousness. We are in fact each other, and occasionally our awareness
thread can move close to another's and touch allowing us to know what they
know (mind reading, telepathy) or experience what they experience
(bi-location). Sometimes the barrier is lowered and our conscious mind
drifts along the awareness thread and gives the impression of existance
outside of the body (astral projection).
And sometimes we can fool the barrier into lowering and work magick!
Galadriel
<From the Center of The Circle>
richard sprigg
>
> We believe that in order to fully develop a workable system of magick you
> first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe. Our current
> working model goes something like this:-
>
> The Conscious Universe as it exists now developed from the 'Big Bang'. That
> was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
> unconscious) expanded itself.
Not radically dissimilar to phenomenology, as I understand your post.
Or am I misunderstanding you totally?
Gary Achenbach
Gala...@thecircle.freeserve.co.uk says...
> We believe that in order to fully develop a workable system of magick you
> first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe.
Why do you believe this?
--Gar
benedicthassell
>The Conscious Universe as it exists now developed from the 'Big Bang'. That
>was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
>unconscious) expanded itself.
etc etc <big snip>
Speculation and conjecture.
Any proof?
If not, why pick/invent this explanation?
>So basically we are not individuals but are in fact all part of one
>consciousness. We are in fact each other..
Maybe.
Don't know.
Why do you think this?
What do you mean by 'consciousness'?
--
Ben H
Galadriel
Galadriel
<From the Center of The Circle>
richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3696D8...@sympatico.ca...
>Galadriel wrote:
>>
>> We believe that in order to fully develop a workable system of magick you
>> first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe. Our
current
>> working model goes something like this:-
>>
>> The Conscious Universe as it exists now developed from the 'Big Bang'.
That
>> was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
>> unconscious) expanded itself.
>
Galadriel
controlling it. I think that most failures experienced by magickians are
caused by a lack of understanding. You use a computer quite happily without
knowing how it works but if you want to program it you need to develop an
understanding of its working. The more you know, more better your programs.
Galadriel
<From the Center of The Circle>
Gary Achenbach <dra...@abstracttoreply.anet-stl.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1100abea1...@news.anet-stl.com...
>In article <77614s$43i$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>Gala...@thecircle.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> We believe that in order to fully develop a workable system of magick you
>> first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe.
>
Galadriel
benedicthassell <benedic...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7768jg$p5m$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>Speculation and conjecture.
>Any proof?
Perhaps you have missed a point here. All theories are speculation and
conjecture.
>If not, why pick/invent this explanation?
This is a theory which can be used to explain many things and can be used as
a basis for an understanding and use of magick.
>>So basically we are not individuals but are in fact all part of one
>>consciousness. We are in fact each other..
>
>Maybe.
>Don't know.
Everyone tends to think this way!
>Why do you think this?
It happens to be a theory that explains a lot to me such as mind reading and
telepathy etc. The Mimbari in Babylon 5 explain life as 'We are the Universe
trying to make sense of itself'. Yet we appear to be many whereas the
Universe appears to be one.
>What do you mean by 'consciousness'?
I suppose awareness and consciousness could be described as one and the
same. Awareness of self. Something that all living mater has to some degree.
>Ben H
Shawn Roske
> Galadriel wrote:
> > We believe that in order to fully develop a workable system of magick you
> > working model goes something like this:-
> Or am I misunderstanding you totally?
Where to you perceive the similarity, Richard? I'm not getting the same sense.
It seems quite far from transcendental subjectivity.
Husserl was a closet structuralist, so was Jung, treating them as such
makes things much more interesting when reading their works-- so I've learned.
shawn
Bill Everett
Gary Achenbach wrote in message ...
>> first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe.
>
>
>--Gar
Developing such a system does provide for a better system for those who are
more rational. Many people require some sort of reason for why things work.
Development of a system allows for a more complete belief that your magick
will or must work. Personally, because I can never fully understand others,
I cannot fully accept it when they tell me that they have worked magick and
it worked. At least I cannot accept it enough to believe that when I work
the same magick it will work for me. As such I have developed my own views
of the universe as a whole based on my experiences. Through
experimentation, I have learned that my views are complete enough for me to
enact change on the Universe and myself through magick. Hence I have a
clearly established cause/effect relationship which allows for complete
confidence that what magick I perform will work.
Bill
Bill Everett
Galadriel wrote in message <77614s$43i$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>We believe that in order to fully develop a workable system of magick you
current
>working model goes something like this:-
>
>was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
>existence of the Universe one could see it as a kind of Amoeba with a cell
>nucleus somewhere within its massive expanding living matter. This matter
>contains varying degrees of matter concentrations throughout its being to
>account for, amongst other things, our different states of matter (solid,
>liquid, gas). Some concentrations of matter contain conscious awareness
and
>some do not. So on a mundane level a human being does whereas a rock does
>not, though they are both 'floating' within the delicate liquid-like matter
>that exudes from the central UM.
>
I would disagree with this. Depending on another "primal source" for an
explanation of your individual consciousness limits the individual.
Depending on a UM as your reason for living limits your ability to act
because you have to think about how this UM wants you to act. In my
opinion, it is better to explore yourself as an individual and develop your
own reasons for living and acting. In this way you truly live with
responsibility for all of your own actions.
Bill
Gary Achenbach
Gala...@thecircle.freeserve.co.uk says...
> If you understand the nature of a thing then you have more chance of
> controlling it.
Generally, yeah. The problem here is one of scale.
> I think that most failures experienced by magickians are
> caused by a lack of understanding. You use a computer quite happily without
> knowing how it works but if you want to program it you need to develop an
> understanding of its working.
The computer's working--you don't "need" an entire metaphysics to
manipulate it. You're free to develop one if you like, but it is not
necessary--may even be harmful.
> The more you know, more better your programs.
>
And for that matter, how many programmers really have a full
understanding of how their software really works, what cascade of logical
circuit switches the program's instructions engage?
--Gar
Bill Everett
Gary Achenbach wrote in message ...
This is an good argument. A programmer only needs to know that his program
will work, not the specifics of how it will affect the machine. However the
programmer does also need more knowledge of how a computer works than your
average user. You don't need to have an understanding of every part of the
universe to manipulate it, but you do need to know what you are trying to
manipulate and how you plan to manipulate it. Otherwise we would all need
to know more than we could possibly fit into our brains before we could even
hope to interact with the universe, much less affect it.
Bill
Joseph
> I don't know anything about phenomenology. Can you tell me more?
It may be that you ought to log a course on comparative philosophy at your
local college, or do some serious background research, before you go about
lauding yourself for re-inventing the wheel.
It might also save you some time, and give you a useful nomenclature to
use in discussions of metaphysics.
- J:.M:.555
"Magick will not free itself from occultism until we strangle the last
astrologer with the guts of the last spiritual master." - Pete Carroll
Joseph
> If you understand the nature of a thing then you have more chance of
> controlling it. I think that most failures experienced by magickians are
> caused by a lack of understanding.
Examples?
> You use a computer quite happily without knowing how it works but if you
> want to program it you need to develop an understanding of its working.
> The more you know, more better your programs.
The subject is a lot more complex than that. But using the analogy, does a
graphics designer using a Macintosh and Adobe Photoshop to create computer
art need to understand the inner workings of QuickDraw, QuickTime and the
Mac OS in order to attain maximum benefit from Photoshop? And assuming
they did understand such things, how would this effect the quality of
their ART?
You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that Magick is some kind of
"science" that can be derived from first principles, if one can only
define these principles. I disagree. I hold Magick to have a lot more in
common with ART than with SCIENCE. As such it is more of a personal
expression than a "system". If you over-analyze Art OR Magick, you stand
to destroy them; or even worse, turn them into SCIENCE.
Yuk.
Bill Everett
Joseph wrote in message ...
>You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that Magick is some kind of
>"science" that can be derived from first principles, if one can only
>define these principles. I disagree. I hold Magick to have a lot more in
>common with ART than with SCIENCE. As such it is more of a personal
>expression than a "system". If you over-analyze Art OR Magick, you stand
>to destroy them; or even worse, turn them into SCIENCE.
>
>Yuk.
>
>- J:.M:.555
>
>"Magick will not free itself from occultism until we strangle the last
>astrologer with the guts of the last spiritual master." - Pete Carroll
>
All of this depends on your personal viewpoints. What is art?
Bill
richard sprigg
>
> I don't know anything about phenomenology. Can you tell me more?
Hegel: "Education in the Phenomenology, then, is the education not of
conscious individuals but of consciousness, of universal mind struggling
to know itself."
Husserl: "Within the pure immanence of such consciousness one unitary
"phenomenon" permeates all the manifolds of phenomenal presentation.
It is the peculiar characteristic of such states of affairs which makes
for the shift in the concept "phenomenon." Rather than just the
thoroughgoing unity of intuition, the variously, changing modes in which
the unity is present, e.g. , the continuously changing perspectival
looks of a real object, are also called "phenomena.""
Husserl's philosophy, as i understood it, was that we all contain the
Universal Mind, though we need to expand and explore our inner territory
to discern it. All posible sub-sections of that universe are
"phenomena", not ends in themselves.
From this I developed a conception of the inner universe that fully
reflects the outer: at the full levels of comprehension, we would
therefore be one with others at a similar stage of self-knowledge.
I fully expect to be disagreed with, but in my humble opinion, you could
do worse than to read Husserl. Many of his ideas do not appear to be
totally dissimilar to those you have posted. If nothing else, you will
have an interesting read.
richard sprigg
> > > first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe. Our current
> > > working model goes something like this:-
> > Or am I misunderstanding you totally?
>
> Where to you perceive the similarity, Richard? I'm not getting the same sense.
> It seems quite far from transcendental subjectivity.
See my response to G. perhaps I misunderstood Husserl, but if that be
the case, the fruits of that misunderstanding have been very useful.
>
Galadriel
without prior knowledge of that wheel. So from what well did my ideas
spring? Does not this indicate knowledge gained from a central unknown
source? I am not trying to copyright the idea merely discuss it.
Galadriel
<From the Center of The Circle>
Joseph <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.990109134037.17952C-100000@slip-3...
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Galadriel wrote:
>
>> I don't know anything about phenomenology. Can you tell me more?
>
>It may be that you ought to log a course on comparative philosophy at your
>local college, or do some serious background research, before you go about
>lauding yourself for re-inventing the wheel.
>
>It might also save you some time, and give you a useful nomenclature to
>use in discussions of metaphysics.
>
Galadriel
very similar to the theories I have posted. Does the fact that my ideas
appeared to develop without reference to Husserl mean that have been at the
same level of self knowledge?
Galadriel
<From the Center of The Circle>
richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:369822...@sympatico.ca...
Galadriel
>> controlling it.
>
In 'The Empire Strike Back', when Yoda suggested that Luke use his mind to
raise his ship from the swamp Luke says -
'Master moving stones around is one thing but this is totally different'.
Yoda replies with -
'No, no different. Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you
have learned.'
I think we can learn a lot from Star Wars.
>> I think that most failures experienced by magickians are
>> caused by a lack of understanding. You use a computer quite happily
without
>> knowing how it works but if you want to program it you need to develop an
>> understanding of its working.
>The computer's working--you don't "need" an entire metaphysics to
>manipulate it. You're free to develop one if you like, but it is not
>necessary--may even be harmful.
You're right. You don't "need" it. Writers of computer viruses do need an
indepth knowledge in order to manipulate the PC at a low level. - very
harmful!
>> The more you know, more better your programs.
>>
>And for that matter, how many programmers really have a full
>understanding of how their software really works, what cascade of logical
>circuit switches the program's instructions engage?
Very few I'm sure. I come across profficient programers who cannot navigate
themselves around using a DOS prompt.
Galadriel
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Galadriel wrote:
>
>> caused by a lack of understanding.
>
The examples that I have come across come mostly from Wiccans and indicate a
focus on the external workings of the magick rather than the internal
substance. What I mean is that a lot of time is spent on casting circles,
invoking 'elemental powers', and kissing each other and very little time
spent on performing techniques to alter consciousness to the point where
magick can occur. I have been involved in a ritual where we spent 80% of the
time doing all the external 'showy' stuff, 15% of the time drinking and
eating and 5% chanting words over a tray of mustard seeds so that while they
grow, wealth come. Seeds grew, wealth didn't.
I have seen similar examples when it came to healing. When it doesn't work
the excuse is always the same. 'The Gods decided that the person would
benefit more from not being healed.' If a money spell didn't work - 'We
obviously didn't do enough magick.'
>> You use a computer quite happily without knowing how it works but if you
>> want to program it you need to develop an understanding of its working.
>> The more you know, more better your programs.
>
>The subject is a lot more complex than that. But using the analogy, does a
>graphics designer using a Macintosh and Adobe Photoshop to create computer
>art need to understand the inner workings of QuickDraw, QuickTime and the
>Mac OS in order to attain maximum benefit from Photoshop? And assuming
>they did understand such things, how would this effect the quality of
>their ART?
I take your point. I would have to say it wouldn't help them much. The
graphics designer is quite happy doing what he does using the tools and
knowledge he has. He can quite easily create his images, without too much
effort. What if he wanted a random selection of his images to appear on the
screen as the computer was starting up? (This requires more in depth
knowledge on a PC than a normal user would have. I don't know how difficult
it is on a Mac).
>You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that Magick is some kind of
>"science" that can be derived from first principles, if one can only
>define these principles. I disagree. I hold Magick to have a lot more in
>common with ART than with SCIENCE. As such it is more of a personal
>expression than a "system". If you over-analyze Art OR Magick, you stand
>to destroy them; or even worse, turn them into SCIENCE.
I am of the opinion that magick is closer to science than art. I believe
that one day we will have the knowledge to work magick in a scientific way
that will show consistency of result.
Galadriel
Bill Everett <wce...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:778ab6$ci3$1...@camel21.mindspring.com...
>>first have to develop a theory about the nature of the Universe. Our
>current
>>working model goes something like this:-
>>
That
>>was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
>>unconscious) expanded itself. If one were to look upon this UM within the
>>existence of the Universe one could see it as a kind of Amoeba with a cell
>>nucleus somewhere within its massive expanding living matter. This matter
>>contains varying degrees of matter concentrations throughout its being to
>>account for, amongst other things, our different states of matter (solid,
>>liquid, gas). Some concentrations of matter contain conscious awareness
>and
>>some do not. So on a mundane level a human being does whereas a rock does
>>not, though they are both 'floating' within the delicate liquid-like
matter
>>that exudes from the central UM.
>>
>
>I would disagree with this. Depending on another "primal source" for an
>explanation of your individual consciousness limits the individual.
>Depending on a UM as your reason for living limits your ability to act
>because you have to think about how this UM wants you to act. In my
>opinion, it is better to explore yourself as an individual and develop your
>own reasons for living and acting. In this way you truly live with
>responsibility for all of your own actions.
>
>Bill
>
another primal source but are part of it. I do agree that we should still
act as if we are individuals, that fits in with the grand design. I am
aknowledging the possible truth behind existance for the purpose of
providing a template for the working of magick.
Gary Achenbach
says...
>
> You don't need to have an understanding of every part of the
> universe to manipulate it, but you do need to know what you are trying to
> manipulate and how you plan to manipulate it. Otherwise we would all need
> to know more than we could possibly fit into our brains before we could even
> hope to interact with the universe, much less affect it.
>
phrasing.
Additionally, though, metaphysics can hamper stuff later on, as well--it
can lead to forcing perception to fit the worldview when the beast
solidifies. I've been chewing through R. Buckminster Fuller's
"Synergetics" recently, and he makes a decent case that the metaphysics
of the 2-d infinite plane of euclidian geometry has done a fair amount of
harm.
--Gar
Erwin Hessle
>
> Galadriel wrote:
>
> >The Conscious Universe as it exists now developed from the 'Big Bang'. That
> >was the time when what we shall call the Universal Mind (collective
> >unconscious) expanded itself.
>
> Speculation and conjecture.
> Any proof?
>
Fear.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Shawn Roske
> In 'The Empire Strike Back', when Yoda suggested that Luke use his mind to
> raise his ship from the swamp Luke says -
Have you read much of Joseph Campbell's work?
Bill Moyers' interview "The Power of Myth", Doubleday, NY, 1988, may yield
some interesting information for you on the background of Lucas' SW. Campbell
spent much time on Skywalker Ranch in his later years until his death in 1987.
> I think we can learn a lot from Star Wars.
It may be a finger pointing...
shawn
Shawn Roske
> Additionally, though, metaphysics can hamper stuff later on, as well--it
> can lead to forcing perception to fit the worldview when the beast
> solidifies. I've been chewing through R. Buckminster Fuller's
> "Synergetics" recently, and he makes a decent case that the metaphysics
> of the 2-d infinite plane of euclidian geometry has done a fair amount of
> harm.
Indeed. Look at what the puritans did to geomancy.
shawn
Shawn Roske
> Husserl: "Within the pure immanence of such consciousness one unitary
> "phenomenon" permeates all the manifolds of phenomenal presentation.
My understanding of this "one unitary "phenomenon"" would be as reference to
the apodictic sense of being-- the transcendental subject.
> It is the peculiar characteristic of such states of affairs which makes
> for the shift in the concept "phenomenon." Rather than just the
> thoroughgoing unity of intuition, the variously, changing modes in which
> the unity is present, e.g. , the continuously changing perspectival
> looks of a real object, are also called "phenomena.""
He seems to be refering to resultants of The Reduction. Do not confuse
theory with methodology.
Nice quote. I am interested to know where it came from.
> Husserl's philosophy, as i understood it, was that we all contain the
> Universal Mind, though we need to expand and explore our inner territory
> to discern it. All posible sub-sections of that universe are
> "phenomena", not ends in themselves.
Universal Mind is a poor description of what Husserl wrote about, as I
understand him, furthermore, Husserl does not strike me as dualistic--
which your mention of "inner territory" seems to suggest.
***
Reading Husserl, however, is like learning a new language.
I, too, found some
rewards.
shawn
richard sprigg
>
> Many thanks for this. I wish I had come across it sooner. It does seem to be
> very similar to the theories I have posted. Does the fact that my ideas
> appeared to develop without reference to Husserl mean that have been at the
> same level of self knowledge?
It would seem to me that only you could answer that, after first reading
Husserl. Given that you see a tentative identity, I suggest that you do
this. He may well have considered some of the same avenues that you are
planning to explore: his viewpoint might well provide some cause for
meditation and thought as you refine your own POV.
The thoughts of a traveller on a similar path are often useful, even if
your conclusions differ.
Regards
richard sprigg
>
> I am of the opinion that magick is closer to science than art. I believe
> that one day we will have the knowledge to work magick in a scientific way
> that will show consistency of result.
I would agree. The magickal record is a valuable tool to review the
nature and conditions of an operation: whether it worked or not, the
data gathered over time is of great value in refining the approach.
Joseph
> Joseph wrote in message ...
> >You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that Magick is some kind of
> >"science" that can be derived from first principles, if one can only
> >define these principles. I disagree. I hold Magick to have a lot more in
> >common with ART than with SCIENCE. As such it is more of a personal
> >expression than a "system". If you over-analyze Art OR Magick, you stand
> >to destroy them; or even worse, turn them into SCIENCE.
> >
> >Yuk.
>
> All of this depends on your personal viewpoints. What is art?
"Art is anything you can get away with." -- Marshall McLuhan
- J:.M:.555
Grrr
<Gala...@thecircle.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Joseph <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.3.96.990109134435.17952D-100000@slip-3...
>>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Galadriel wrote:
>>
>>> If you understand the nature of a thing then you have more chance of
>>> controlling it. I think that most failures experienced by magickians are
>>> caused by a lack of understanding.
>>
>>Examples?
>
>The examples that I have come across come mostly from Wiccans and indicate a
>focus on the external workings of the magick rather than the internal
>substance. What I mean is that a lot of time is spent on casting circles,
>invoking 'elemental powers', and kissing each other and very little time
>spent on performing techniques to alter consciousness to the point where
>magick can occur. I have been involved in a ritual where we spent 80% of the
>time doing all the external 'showy' stuff, 15% of the time drinking and
>eating and 5% chanting words over a tray of mustard seeds so that while they
>grow, wealth come. Seeds grew, wealth didn't.
>I have seen similar examples when it came to healing. When it doesn't work
>the excuse is always the same. 'The Gods decided that the person would
>benefit more from not being healed.' If a money spell didn't work - 'We
>obviously didn't do enough magick.'
Then maybe all you were being taught was a lesson in futility, where
those who managed break free from this circle of fools, were those who
understood what 'free will' truly means, as the rest of the idiots
just got rounded up and all thrown upon some small island together.
richard sprigg
>
> richard sprigg (kt...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > Husserl: "Within the pure immanence of such consciousness one unitary
> > "phenomenon" permeates all the manifolds of phenomenal presentation.
>
> My understanding of this "one unitary "phenomenon"" would be as reference to
> the apodictic sense of being-- the transcendental subject.
>
> > It is the peculiar characteristic of such states of affairs which makes
> > for the shift in the concept "phenomenon." Rather than just the
> > thoroughgoing unity of intuition, the variously, changing modes in which
> > the unity is present, e.g. , the continuously changing perspectival
> > looks of a real object, are also called "phenomena.""
>
> He seems to be refering to resultants of The Reduction. Do not confuse
> theory with methodology.
My take was that his definition of "phenomena" include complete systems
of philosophy. The totality of phenomena would then actually approach a
description of the whole.
Of course the difficulty of discusing Phenomenology is well known.
The "phenomenology page" at
http://sac.uky.edu/%7Ersand1/husserl.html
makes this clear.
>
> Nice quote. I am interested to know where it came from.
http://www.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/essays/Husserl.html
A lecture by Husserl in 1917.
>
> > Husserl's philosophy, as i understood it, was that we all contain the
> > Universal Mind, though we need to expand and explore our inner territory
> > to discern it. All posible sub-sections of that universe are
> > "phenomena", not ends in themselves.
>
> Universal Mind is a poor description of what Husserl wrote about, as I
> understand him,
Accepted. Encapsulating the nuances of Husserl is like putting an ocean
in a jar: the only way to come to any understanding is to read a couple
of his works.
furthermore, Husserl does not strike me as dualistic--
> which your mention of "inner territory" seems to suggest.
No, my description was poor, but essentially we can only perceive the
inner universe.
> ***
> Reading Husserl, however, is like learning a new language.
For me, a language at which one is hopelessly illiterate.
Reading him is the only advice I can give to anyone. The concepts are
difficult and the scope massive, but the effort is worthwhile.
Trader
*snip*
> Some concentrations of matter contain conscious awareness and
> some do not. So on a mundane level a human being does whereas a rock does
*snip*
Have you ever been able to communicate with a rock? I personally do not
care for the theories of the universe (best of luck to you though - hope
you find what you are looking for). I find the practical side of life a
lot more useful =]
humbly,
Trader
Trader
*snip*
> Speculation and conjecture.
> Any proof?
To prove something you must first base your proof on some assumptions.
Then you have to prove all those assumptions. *watches the recursion
spiral away into infinity*
I think that speculation and conjecture is all we have, especially when
regarding the theories of the universe.
humbly,
Trader
Ben Rodda
Gary Achenbach wrote:
> In article <778e1i$1ha$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>, wce...@mindspring.com
> says...
> >
> > You don't need to have an understanding of every part of the
> > universe to manipulate it, but you do need to know what you are trying to
> > manipulate and how you plan to manipulate it. Otherwise we would all need
> > to know more than we could possibly fit into our brains before we could even
> > hope to interact with the universe, much less affect it.
> >
Just remember the more you know about any given system the more control of the
variables you have that could effect the desired end result. Those understanding
these variables can also help to achieve something that you may not have otherwise
been able to do.
B.
Ben Rodda
Trader wrote:
I have communicated with a rock. Lots of rocks actually. They mostly tell
tales of time and pressure; others bear witness to death and bloodshed. One
tale a rock behind my house told me was of a great time of ice and it showed me
the scars that came from other rocks that were scraped against it.
So your probably going "That's not Magik that's geology!!!". Science and magik
are not mutually exclusive. Necromancy is now forensics, alchemy is chemistry,
and so on. Fairly practical don't you think. ;)
B.
Trader
> I have communicated with a rock. Lots of rocks actually. They mostly tell
> tales of time and pressure; others bear witness to death and bloodshed. One
> tale a rock behind my house told me was of a great time of ice and it showed me
> the scars that came from other rocks that were scraped against it.
> So your probably going "That's not Magik that's geology!!!". Science and magik
> are not mutually exclusive. Necromancy is now forensics, alchemy is chemistry,
> and so on. Fairly practical don't you think. ;)
> B.
A good point Ben. Unfortunately I define science and magic as just that,
mutually exclusive. However I do also think that what is science for one
can be magic for another.
I shall have to adapt my definition of communication. Thankyou very much
*drops his lightly carried beliefs*.
My original point however was as follows: I really don't think that it's
fair to say that rocks aren't sentient or aware just because we can't
hear their specialised form of communication =]
humbly,
Trader
Ben Rodda
Trader wrote:
No problem, I am still pushing to get together the materials for a Turing test to be
performed on Jell-O (see old posts) to see if it has sentience. As for
science/magik... I believe the magik is a science and the art. That if I do X,Y and Z
with A,B, and C I will get result 5. Not that I'm successful at my casting or rituals
all the time ( hell even most of the time), but I keep refining my formulae every
time. I work on the premise that there are certain universal magikal constants, I
seek to codify them.B.
Bill Everett
I guess I would have been better off asking why science and art should be
separate. Science isn't all math (although math does have a beauty of it's
own). IMHO, Art, Magick and Science are all linked in a very fundamental
way.
Bill
Bill Everett
Ben Rodda wrote in message <369B71C3...@newbridge.com>...
Speaking of Jell-O and sentience. Did you know that if you hook up lime
Jell-O to an EEG it produces the same waves as a human brain? I kid you
not. I saw a special on the Discovery channel about bizarre rumors.
Apparently someone started this one on the west coast (US), so the Discovery
channel tested this one, as well as some others.
Bill
Bill Everett
richard sprigg wrote in message <369D69...@sympatico.ca>...
>Bill Everett wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess I would have been better off asking why science and art should be
>> separate. Science isn't all math (although math does have a beauty of
it's
>> own). IMHO, Art, Magick and Science are all linked in a very fundamental
>> way.
>
>individuals.
>The cornerstone of art is a unique quality dependant entirely upon the
>ability of the practitioner. Thus even the same practitioner may fail to
>replicate the same effect twice.
So is art only art to the artist?
richard sprigg
richard sprigg
In a sense, yes.
Art has a tendency to be elite, in that some will usually excel others,
regardless of the effort expended. The variable of talent is introduced
into the mixture.
Science will be more egalitarian, in that an experiment properly
performed will reliably produce certain phenomena.
Spacecabbage
>
>benedicthassell <benedic...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7768jg$p5m$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>>>>So basically we are not individuals but are in fact all part of one
>>>consciousness. We are in fact each other..
>>
>>Maybe.
>>Don't know.
>
>Everyone tends to think this way!
>>What do you mean by 'consciousness'?
>
>I suppose awareness and consciousness could be described as one and the
>same. Awareness of self. Something that all living mater has to some
degree.
Awareness of self or conciousness in this manner seems to be better entitled
as sentience. The state of being sentient creates a very individualistic
state. Example: No living organism known today that operates on a "hive
mind" or colony perspective can is labled as sentient. Once we attain a
sentient state we become less and less "each other."
Spacecabbage
-Conlan Abu-
Spacecabbage
>As I said. I do not believe that we are individuals. We are not dependin on
>another primal source but are part of it. I do agree that we should still
>act as if we are individuals, that fits in with the grand design. I am
>aknowledging the possible truth behind existance for the purpose of
>providing a template for the working of magick.
>
>Galadriel
><From the Center of The Circle>
When we use magick we are expressing our own will to a greater extent. Does
this not make us even more independant of a possible universal mind, more of
an individual?
Spacecabbage
-Conlan Abu-
Spacecabbage
>A good point Ben. Unfortunately I define science and magic as just that,
>mutually exclusive. However I do also think that what is science for one
>can be magic for another.
I beleive that science is magick that has an explanation accepted by the
collective will. I beleive (partially) in a theory of colective
will/conciousness in application to magick boundries of will.
Would some others please share their own ideas behind the relationship of
science and magick.
Spacecabbage
-Conlan Abu-
Bill Everett
Spacecabbage wrote in message <77o9nj$8ov$3...@ligarius.ultra.net>...
I think you hit mine dead on. Science is explained magick.
Bill
aikeena
And what I think is that you fellows ought to make sure you do both
before you talk about them.
One thing I have noticed that both have in common is the tendency to
attract individuals who really don't know much about them and entice
them to make silly comments about what these individuals clearly don't
know.
aikeena
Spacecabbage
aikeena wrote in message <36A0B4...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>And what I think is that you fellows ought to make sure you do both
>before you talk about them.
You present yourself as knowing both and assuming that we know nothing. I
have practiced both for quite some years, science more so as my livelyhood
depnds greatly on my knowledge of the physics of sound.
>One thing I have noticed that both have in common is the tendency to
>attract individuals who really don't know much about them and entice
>them to make silly comments about what these individuals clearly don't
>know.
>
>aikeena
You make assumptions that others know nothing and in doing so you show your
ignorance of other people, thoughts, and ideas not of your own.
Spacecabbage
-Conlan Abu-
MrRed
on such different theories.
Science attempts to define the observable with law.
Magick assumes the law to affect the observable.
it's akin to explaining electricity using Newton's laws.
note that these two systems (science and magick) are not exclusive just
different.
--
---------------------------
It's going to be difficult to test my new theory without destroying the
universe.
But what the hell, it's a really neat theory.
§ http://members.aa.net/~atomic §
Spacecabbage wrote in message <77o9nj$8ov$3...@ligarius.ultra.net>...
>Trader wrote in message <369AED1D...@usa.net>...
>
aikeena
Your point is?
You make your living off the physics of sound. I am a physicist (B.S. on
Ph.D. track). Either is irrelevant to our correctness. Expertise in
science comes from doing science, not talking about it.
Thus statements something like "science is commonly accepted magick"
shows a bone deep ignorance about science and magick. Scientists'
statements are granted no greater prima facie validity than those of non
scientists UNLESS the statement is the product of a documented
scientific inquiry, and only then insofar as it is accepted in
methodology by reasonable challenge and attempts by others to reproduce
results OR a credible result of academic study and debate.
I assume that you in fact have not made any such scientific inquiry that
would support statements such as that above?
No? Is that a false and erroneous assumption? If you are in fact, a
philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of science and its
relationship to mysticism, religion, and magical practices- please
reveal it. As a matter of fact, I have studied such topics specifically.
Just informally for about a decade or so mind you. I would be fascinated
by your informed views, if you have them.
Please speak on.
Now if you know something about magic, I happen to know just a little
bit about that topic myself. I don't have any formal study you
understand, just what I could pick up catch as catch can on my own here
and there, there and here. So I'd like to hear about that too, seeing
that is actually the proported topic of this newsgroup.
So please, dazzle me and shatter my illusions- show me how my
assumptions are oh so wrong.
Really, go on, I'm a good sport about being shown up.
aikeena
The Circle
repeatable results. This will eventually happen, and it should be the goal of
all magickians to work towards this end. The reason why a lot of magickians
would like to consider magick an art is because not everyone is good at art. It
takes talent. So if your magick doesn't work it can be said that you just don't
have the talent. If it becomes science then anyone with the knowledge can use
it. It then becomes less of a practice for the elite and some magickian's egos
will be bruised. They won't like that will they?
Galadriel
<From The Center of the Circle>
SUjv55555
magick don't come out the same way each time you do the exact same thing, then
scrutinize your methods and find the differences between experiements. Delete
the differences as best you can, and repeat. Then, when your experiements
fail, you can only blame your own methods.
Many times magick doesn't work due to the negation of energy from the desired
goal. Talking about, thinking about, relating experiences from your
experiments will subtract from the amount of energy you originally deposited on
the subject, because you are draining it as you tap it. Subtract energy from
your home, and the lightbulbs don't light up.
Because egomaniacal magickians have a hard time not discussing their latest
"project", their experiments fail with frequency.
Just my theory...
Sienna
Having Fun Swatting at Time Flies
Spacecabbage
>You make your living off the physics of sound. I am a physicist (B.S. on
>Ph.D. track). Either is irrelevant to our correctness. Expertise in
>science comes from doing science, not talking about it.
First let me wish you luck in your educational endeavor.
I don't know what the teaching method at Grand Valley is but at the
Universities I've been too the teaching has come mostly in the form of
lectures. This is talking about it is it not? Although not as effective as
hands on experience in any field it is the primary source of eduction
especially if the writen word can be accepted as "talking."
>Thus statements something like "science is commonly accepted magick"
>shows a bone deep ignorance about science and magick. Scientists'
>statements
[snip]
>I assume that you in fact have not made any such scientific inquiry that
>would support statements such as that above?
I didn't say that science was only explained magick but magick that was
believed as true by the majority of the will. Magick is a manisfestation of
the will. Crowley (not to be taken as the end all authority but a good one
none the least) gave this sarcastic example of magick in crude form. *I wish
to influence something, I take the magick tools of pen and paper and write a
letter to someone whom has direct control over the situation.* I've
paraphrased the quote since most of my texts are not currently in the same
state as I am.
With magick being a manisfestation of will it only works when more will is
in the belief that something can/is happening than believes against it. This
is why the use of current scientific practice to proove things true is
difficult in the case of anything considered to be supernatural. For
example: Most practitioners of magick will claim they beleive that
levitation is possible wether they themselves can perform this feat or not
(doubt is the ememy of magick especially self-doubt). Some people claim to
have this ability and have witnesses to it. When asked to demonstrate in
fromt of a scientific panel they have always failed. The disbelief of the
scientific minds present prevent this levitation ability from happening in
these situations. Most do not or even cannot believe that it would be
possible as it would go against almost all of their current knowledge.
People aren't open minded to possibilities by nature, we have a subconciuos
we can't "turn off." What we know and what we've experienced always effects
us. This is why people who are both exceptional at science and magick are
not common, the two don't get along very well regardless of any possible
relation. Cases like the example I've given aren't just one-offs it's been
attempted more than once. My late grandfather, Dr. H.Moore, was an observor
at two of these. So these people might just be good magicians, opticle
illusionists not practitioners of magick. Usually conartists are not stupid
they would be more likely to decline any invitation to perform in front of
any such panel knowing that they would fail and loose any flase credibility
that they had gained. Only a person who believed that they could pull it off
would try. So far all that have were not stronger in will than the combined
disbelief in audience.
>Now if you know something about magic, I happen to know just a little
>bit about that topic myself. I don't have any formal study you
>understand, just what I could pick up catch as catch can on my own here
>and there, there and here. So I'd like to hear about that too, seeing
>that is actually the proported topic of this newsgroup.
I do have formal study in magick almost 5 years, more study if you include
self study. Proported is a good word for this news group, not to say that
there are not some people with a good woth of things to say on it. True I'm
pretty new to this one but I've found most newsgroups stray alot when it
comes to content and topic unless they're moderated.
>So please, dazzle me and shatter my illusions- show me how my
>assumptions are oh so wrong.
Can you shatter mine? Sounds like we're both rather stubborn. (no offense
ment)
Spacecabbage
-Conlan Abu-
Bill Everett
>>
>> aikeena wrote in message <36A0B4...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>>
>> >And what I think is that you fellows ought to make sure you do both
>> >before you talk about them.
>>
>> You present yourself as knowing both and assuming that we know nothing. I
>> have practiced both for quite some years, science more so as my
livelyhood
>> depnds greatly on my knowledge of the physics of sound.
>>
>> >One thing I have noticed that both have in common is the tendency to
>> >attract individuals who really don't know much about them and entice
>> >them to make silly comments about what these individuals clearly don't
>> >know.
>> >
>> >aikeena
>>
>> You make assumptions that others know nothing and in doing so you show
your
>> ignorance of other people, thoughts, and ideas not of your own.
>>
>> Spacecabbage
>> -Conlan Abu-
>
>Your point is?
>
>Ph.D. track). Either is irrelevant to our correctness. Expertise in
>science comes from doing science, not talking about it.
>
How does one do Science? I think Science is more of a subject than an
action.
>Thus statements something like "science is commonly accepted magick"
>shows a bone deep ignorance about science and magick. Scientists'
>statements are granted no greater prima facie validity than those of non
>scientists UNLESS the statement is the product of a documented
>scientific inquiry, and only then insofar as it is accepted in
>methodology by reasonable challenge and attempts by others to reproduce
>results OR a credible result of academic study and debate.
>
I did not say that "science is commonly accepted magick," I said "Science
is explained Magick." Science provides for a deeper understanding of the
universe and the way that we (the universe and I) interact. Magick is
causing change according to will. Science explains how such changes are
made.
>I assume that you in fact have not made any such scientific inquiry that
>would support statements such as that above?
>
>No? Is that a false and erroneous assumption? If you are in fact, a
>philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of science and its
>relationship to mysticism, religion, and magical practices- please
>reveal it. As a matter of fact, I have studied such topics specifically.
>Just informally for about a decade or so mind you. I would be fascinated
>by your informed views, if you have them.
>
Reveal what? The relationship between science and magick? They are
different faces of the same thing.
>Please speak on.
>
>Now if you know something about magic, I happen to know just a little
>bit about that topic myself. I don't have any formal study you
>understand, just what I could pick up catch as catch can on my own here
>and there, there and here. So I'd like to hear about that too, seeing
>that is actually the proported topic of this newsgroup.
>
Formal study is not necessary, but can be useful. You want to know about
magick? You are a scientist, you should know that you must specific
questions in order to get specific answers.
>So please, dazzle me and shatter my illusions- show me how my
>assumptions are oh so wrong.
>
>Really, go on, I'm a good sport about being shown up.
>
>aikeena
Why do you want to be shown up? So you can learn? Illusions, spewn forth,
to be shattered.
Bill
MrRed
It's going to be difficult to test my new theory without destroying the
universe.
But what the hell, it's a really neat theory.
§ http://members.aa.net/~atomic §
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Schuler <d...@teleport.com>
To: MrRed <atom...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: science magick relationship was Re: Current Theories
>>comparing science with magick is a risky undertaking. they are each based
>>on such different theories.
>>Science attempts to define the observable with law.
>>Magick assumes the law to affect the observable.
>
>That's an interesting distinction. If it is accurate, then you should be
>able to change the laws governing observable phenomena. Can you, in fact,
>cause a change in, say, the effect of gravity on the Earth's surface, such
>that you can levitate? Now, I know that there are people who believe this
>can be done and occasionally a person will claim to have done it, but we
>are talking about an observable phenomenon, not a claim or a belief. Can
>you demonstrate it?
>
there is a lot that science can not currently explain.
documented instances of scientific anomalies without explanation. (no I
can't quote sources but I am sure we are all aware of the growing belief in
the unbelievable).
my point is science is not law, only observable law. people see what they
believe.
>>It's going to be difficult to test my new theory without destroying the
>>universe.
>>But what the hell, it's a really neat theory.
>
>If magick actually works that way, then a test of it won't destroy the
>universe. At least it hasn't yet. What you seem to be saying is that
>magicians embrace the ambiguous realm that is beyond what we can observe,
>while scientists do not.
>
this sig. is more a testament to myself than to my beliefs.
>Science despises ambiguity, even when it must acknowledge it. It uses the
>language of mathematics, in which one symbol means one thing and one thing
>only. The language of magick is much more like that of various forms of
>art, in which there are many interpretations. Yet, science itself is
>elegant and artistic also.
mathematics is definite because it was defined. I ask about "imaginary"
numbers, variable constants, and inflection fields. did these mean only one
thing before they were defined and documented before the science of
mathematics observed their existence?
>Consciousness which is creative and ambiguous is magical; consciousness
>which is descriptive and precise is scientific. Perhaps this is sort of
>what you were saying.
agreed.
magick works by using law that is not yet defined or is not definable. by
building the observable with will/law. and in this it is both creative and
ambiguous.
science builds law with the observable.
Doubter
> science and magick.
Personally,I think that magick can be view as either science or art.As
science(the view I generally take of it),it is utilising the effect that
quantum physics is starting to uncover:the act of observation alters the
observed(oversimp. I know).A person observes events in a deliberate way,so
at to alter the events.
That is what I view as the scientific "how",but this still makes it no
less art.If you can measure the angle and kinetic force of each movement
of hammer and chisel,it makes no difference to the artistic quality of the
great sculpture.
Use your skills wisely and with deliberation,and you are doing "art". Do
it methodically and analytically,and you are doing science.Choose your
route:there is no right answer.
As for effectiveness...it does differ.I can get probability based effects
that are superb(with nothing more than a delibetate thought),but have a
hard time doing more traditional,abstract spells.
Doubter
Poor Monk of the Temple of Solomon,Gorilla,Famine,Patron Saint of
Fools,Gerbils,Richard Gere,Girly noises,and Token Doubt
"I'm too paranoid,but if I weren't,THEY'd get me!"
aikeena
>
> How does one do Science? I think Science is more of a subject than an
> action.
>
I find this attitude often, especially for those whose experience with
science consists of memorizing high school or introductory college
textbooks.
>
> I did not say that "science is commonly accepted magick," I said "Science
> is explained Magick." Science provides for a deeper understanding of the
> universe and the way that we (the universe and I) interact. Magick is
> causing change according to will. Science explains how such changes are
> made.
>
Ah, the Arthur C. Clarke notion.
> >So please, dazzle me and shatter my illusions- show me how my
> >assumptions are oh so wrong.
> >
> >Really, go on, I'm a good sport about being shown up.
> >
> >aikeena
>
> Why do you want to be shown up? So you can learn? Illusions, spewn forth,
> to be shattered.
>
> Bill
Hmmm... I do have a number of odd notions. Here's one: belief does not
dictate reality.
aikeena
aikeena
> aikeena wrote in message <36A168...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>
> >You make your living off the physics of sound. I am a physicist (B.S. on
> >Ph.D. track). Either is irrelevant to our correctness. Expertise in
> >science comes from doing science, not talking about it.
>
> First let me wish you luck in your educational endeavor.
>
> I don't know what the teaching method at Grand Valley is but at the
> Universities I've been too the teaching has come mostly in the form of
> lectures. This is talking about it is it not? Although not as effective as
> hands on experience in any field it is the primary source of eduction
> especially if the writen word can be accepted as "talking."
>
Verbal communication is an important part of education, especially in
specific interactions that are conducive to developing insight. But the
main method of physics education is (and has been for several centuries)
the practice and solution of physical problems and questions using
mathematical formalism. Probably 90% of physics is doing mathematical
problems or actual experiments, 8% writing those up, and 2% or less
talking about it. those are conservative estimates. If you go to
chemistry, you spend less time on theory and more on laboratory work,
but the general idea is the same. Same goes for engineering, with an
emphasis of applications and design.
>
> I didn't say that science was only explained magick but magick that was
> believed as true by the majority of the will. Magick is a manisfestation of
> the will. [snip]
> With magick being a manisfestation of will it only works when more will is
> in the belief that something can/is happening than believes against it. This
> is why the use of current scientific practice to proove things true is
> difficult in the case of anything considered to be supernatural. For
> example: Most practitioners of magick will claim they beleive that
> levitation is possible wether they themselves can perform this feat or not
> (doubt is the ememy of magick especially self-doubt). Some people claim to
> have this ability and have witnesses to it. When asked to demonstrate in
> fromt of a scientific panel they have always failed.
[snip]
So how about these facts?
A) why did early scientific experiments and demonstrates work on a
regular basis even when they challenged the conventional orthodoxy?
(Gailleo, the discovery of the elements, Newton, Bacon, etc.)
B) Why do new scientific experiments that discover new phenomena work
even when the challenge traditional scientific orthodoxy (Oerstead's
theory of magnetism, Quantum physics, etc.)
C) Why do hotly pursued and widely followed theories of science
sometimes fail despite immense funding, capturing popular imagination
(ala making appearances in Star Trek serials, etc.), and academic
support? (tachyon theory, super string theory, GUT theories, etc.)
You ought to learn something:
What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always
popular.
Belief does not dictate reality. It effects the actions taken regard to
reality, which change reality. The universe doesn't care what we
believe, it only matters what we do. Belief's role in actualizing
potential is critical- one must have a threshold level of confidence to
do what one can do, but belief by *itself* cannot enable a person to do
something that they did not have the ability to perform before.
> >So please, dazzle me and shatter my illusions- show me how my
> >assumptions are oh so wrong.
>
> Can you shatter mine? Sounds like we're both rather stubborn. (no offense
> ment)
>
> Spacecabbage
> -Conlan Abu-
You have no idea. No offense taken.
aikeena
Joseph
> aikeena wrote in message <36A168...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>
> >You make your living off the physics of sound. I am a physicist (B.S. on
> >Ph.D. track). Either is irrelevant to our correctness. Expertise in
> >science comes from doing science, not talking about it.
>
>
> With magick being a manisfestation of will it only works when more will is
> in the belief that something can/is happening than believes against it.
Your use of the term "more will" is confusing. Do you mean as in a greater
number of persons? Or some quantifiable measure of "will" in a single
person?
> This is why the use of current scientific practice to proove things true
> is difficult in the case of anything considered to be supernatural.
Such things as what commonly is defined as "supernatural" are only
peripherally concerned with magical work. Acts of thamaturgy seem to
manifest as _preternatural_ effects, in my experience. If I do a working
for prosperity, I expect it to manifest as unexpected lucrative job
opportunities, not bags of money falling from the sky.
> For
> example: Most practitioners of magick will claim they beleive that
> levitation is possible wether they themselves can perform this feat or
> not (doubt is the ememy of magick especially self-doubt).
It is entirely possible, from a quantum mechanical pont of view, that all
of the particles of my body COULD "choose" to collapse their wave
functions in such a way as to cause my location to shift in a certain
direction simultaneously. It is however so unlikely that it would not be
expected to occur within the time frame of the entire history of the
manifest universe. Possible? Yes. Probable? Hardly.
> Some people claim to have this ability and have witnesses to it.
Like TM frog-jumpers and new age loons. I am reminded of the guru's
student who spent 20 years learning to walk on water. When he demonstrated
his hard-won ability to his guru by walking across a river, the old man
hit him with his stick and pointed to the ferryboat nearby. "You've wasted
twenty years learning to do something useless!"
> When asked to
> demonstrate in fromt of a scientific panel they have always failed. The
> disbelief of the scientific minds present prevent this levitation
> ability from happening in these situations.
Or they were publicity seeking fakes.
> Most do not or even cannot
> believe that it would be possible as it would go against almost all of
> their current knowledge. People aren't open minded to possibilities by
> nature, we have a subconciuos we can't "turn off."
Spare called it the "psychic censor". A great part of magical training is
learning to circumvent it.
> What we know and what
> we've experienced always effects us. This is why people who are both
> exceptional at science and magick are not common, the two don't get
> along very well regardless of any possible relation. Cases like the
> example I've given aren't just one-offs it's been attempted more than
> once.
Sure, Transcendental Meditators<tm> Have been selling levitation for
decades. But to observe what they call "levitation" is to see a person
sitting in lotus position hopping off the floor like a frog. They make
much noise about how the "hang time" in the air is more than gravity would
allow, but this has never been shown to be the case. You may as well offer
Michael Jordan as an example of "levitation".
> My late grandfather, Dr. H.Moore, was an observor at two of these.
> So these people might just be good magicians, opticle illusionists not
> practitioners of magick. Usually conartists are not stupid they would be
> more likely to decline any invitation to perform in front of any such
> panel knowing that they would fail and loose any flase credibility that
> they had gained. Only a person who believed that they could pull it off
> would try. So far all that have were not stronger in will than the
> combined disbelief in audience.
This clarifies your position. If both you and I are the only observers in
a room, and we bith agree that I am floating two inches off the ground,
then I AM floating two inches off the ground, sophistically speaking. But
this is not science.
- J:.M:.555
"Isn't sanity just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean, all you get is that
one trick, rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, well,
the sky's the limit!" - The Tick
aikeena
First things first- hello Joseph!!! I'll take a more thorough catchup to
private email.
> Your use of the term "more will" is confusing. Do you mean as in a greater
> number of persons? Or some quantifiable measure of "will" in a single
> person?
>
Not to mention that in everyday life, we acknowledge the ability of one
determined individual's will to overcome the diffuse or unmotivated will
of many. Even *if* magical disbelief impeded magical actualization, this
doesn't explain many things.
> > For
> > example: Most practitioners of magick will claim they beleive that
> > levitation is possible wether they themselves can perform this feat or
> > not (doubt is the ememy of magick especially self-doubt).
>
> It is entirely possible, from a quantum mechanical pont of view, that all
> of the particles of my body COULD "choose" to collapse their wave
> functions in such a way as to cause my location to shift in a certain
> direction simultaneously. It is however so unlikely that it would not be
> expected to occur within the time frame of the entire history of the
> manifest universe. Possible? Yes. Probable? Hardly.
>
Well, actually I've been thinking about that. In strict Q.M. terms there
might be a way feasible given near term or present technology. Not the
path of least resistance mind you, but potentially useful for some
purposes.
> > Most do not or even cannot
> > believe that it would be possible as it would go against almost all of
> > their current knowledge. People aren't open minded to possibilities by
> > nature, we have a subconciuos we can't "turn off."
>
> Spare called it the "psychic censor". A great part of magical training is
> learning to circumvent it.
>
I have to emphasis this- often a difficulty for industrial age or modern
or postmodern western culture raised individuals. In earlier times, and
by this I mean until very recently the "psychic censor" was a non issue
for most magical students. It's not uncommon to have a little doubt
starting out, but the sort of ingrained massive psychological block
deemed the "psychic censor" by Spare is I believe really an artifical
artifact of western culture. For careful anthropology buffs or
proffessionals (I am the former, and not the latter) one can actually
trace its development and birth.
I have met several individuals, and I am one myself, whose cultural base
was significantly different enough that the psychic censor problem was
almost non existent. I even developed training methods to either prevent
it's manifestation or quickly dissolve it, one of which is similar to
(though developed independently from) and ancient indian technique
called Darshan. I'd be happy to chat about it in private email Joseph.
> Sure, Transcendental Meditators<tm> Have been selling levitation for
> decades. But to observe what they call "levitation" is to see a person
> sitting in lotus position hopping off the floor like a frog. They make
> much noise about how the "hang time" in the air is more than gravity would
> allow, but this has never been shown to be the case. You may as well offer
> Michael Jordan as an example of "levitation".
>
Levitation? The man *can* fly. ;)
aikeena
dagon productions
>
> I have met several individuals, and I am one myself, whose cultural base
> was significantly different enough that the psychic censor problem was
> almost non existent. I even developed training methods to either prevent
> it's manifestation or quickly dissolve it, one of which is similar to
> (though developed independently from) and ancient indian technique
> called Darshan. I'd be happy to chat about it in private email Joseph.
Please do not take it to email... post here... as this sounds
quite interesting.
-douglas
--
**********************************************************
DAGON PRODUCTIONS
Chaos Magick & Occult Books, Experimental & Strange Music
da...@home.com - http://members.home.com/dagon/
Spacecabbage
>number of persons? Or some quantifiable measure of "will" in a single
>person?
The second, a person's will can vary greatly from individual to individual.
We as human beings aren't the end all of the universe either so there are
other sources of will. No, I'm not going on an exterterestrial tangent. I
do't think they exist.
Spacecabbage
-Conaln Abu-
Spacecabbage
>
>A) why did early scientific experiments and demonstrates work on a
>regular basis even when they challenged the conventional orthodoxy?
>(Gailleo, the discovery of the elements, Newton, Bacon, etc.)
>B) Why do new scientific experiments that discover new phenomena work
>even when the challenge traditional scientific orthodoxy (Oerstead's
>theory of magnetism, Quantum physics, etc.)
>C) Why do hotly pursued and widely followed theories of science
>sometimes fail despite immense funding, capturing popular imagination
>(ala making appearances in Star Trek serials, etc.), and academic
>support? (tachyon theory, super string theory, GUT theories, etc.)
>
>You ought to learn something:
>
>What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always
>popular.
If in poular you mean "liked or preferred." HItler wasn't popular to a lot
of people but few contest his existence.
Again there is doubt and as I mentioned before, especially on C.
A and B are both good examples of an individual expressing more will and/or
persuading the rest of the majority. A person's will and beleif isn't a
constant. B is an example of what can happen when the will is split.
>Belief does not dictate reality. It effects the actions taken regard to
>reality, which change reality. The universe doesn't care what we
>believe, it only matters what we do. Belief's role in actualizing
>potential is critical- one must have a threshold level of confidence to
>do what one can do, but belief by *itself* cannot enable a person to do
>something that they did not have the ability to perform before.
Correct belief by itself does nothing except in the mind of the believer.
Belief through the will is the action.
Sapcecabbage
-Conlan Abu-
aikeena
>
> aikeena wrote:
> >
>
> > I have met several individuals, and I am one myself, whose cultural base
> > was significantly different enough that the psychic censor problem was
> > almost non existent. I even developed training methods to either prevent
> > it's manifestation or quickly dissolve it, one of which is similar to
> > (though developed independently from) and ancient indian technique
> > called Darshan. I'd be happy to chat about it in private email Joseph.
>
> Please do not take it to email... post here... as this sounds
> quite interesting.
>
> -douglas
No.
Nothing personal against you, but I learned the hard way that people
just don't appreciate things that are given away. Joseph from my point
of view, has earned my respect and the right to share some of whatever
virtue lies in my personal efforts. The stuff I post here, I post
because I take pity (yes Richard would chide me) on the poor deluded
fools I see around here and because I like to chat with people I like.
But I don't know didly about you. So unless I'm given massive reason to
think otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time on you. Don't take it
too hard, like I said it's nothing personal.
aikeena
aikeena
> >What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always
> >popular.
>
> If in poular you mean "liked or preferred." HItler wasn't popular to a lot
> of people but few contest his existence.
>
Tsk, tsk such literal thinking. Try this on: morality is a form of
belief- I believe this is right, that is wrong, etc. Many would argue
that morality is arbitrary, relative, etc. But even here, we find strong
arguments (and I'm not just thinking about religious fundamentalism...
consider the words inalienable rights used in the Declaration of
Independence, or the I Have a Dream speech by M.L.K. Jr.) that personal
conviction is not arbitrary but rather rests against the backdrop of a
natural structure created by human nature.
That is in simple terms: if something belief in something as
controversial as morality can be argued to be not arbitrary, for what
reason do you think that my belief in something so much less
conterversial like gravity to be more arbitrary?
All of that neatly epitomized in the saying: what is popular is not
always right... I do try to be concise and subtle, but really sometimes
it is wasted.
> Again there is doubt and as I mentioned before, especially on C.
>
> A and B are both good examples of an individual expressing more will and/or
> persuading the rest of the majority. A person's will and beleif isn't a
> constant. B is an example of what can happen when the will is split.
>
Post hoc, ad hoc cheap rationalizations. Anybody can explain anything in
*hindsight*. you can always fit a line to a curve if you use an infinite
number of degrees of freedom. You're taking an equation and fitting it
to a line without using out of sample data- i.e. rationalizing.
You're starting with your conclusion accepted a priori as true, and
working backward rationalizing everything to fit your personal
perceptual belief set. You think you're being smart, but you're just
tying yourself in the same circular logic that humanity has always used.
What a crock.
> >Belief does not dictate reality. It effects the actions taken regard to
> >reality, which change reality. The universe doesn't care what we
> >believe, it only matters what we do. Belief's role in actualizing
> >potential is critical- one must have a threshold level of confidence to
> >do what one can do, but belief by *itself* cannot enable a person to do
> >something that they did not have the ability to perform before.
>
> Correct belief by itself does nothing except in the mind of the believer.
> Belief through the will is the action.
>
> Sapcecabbage
How about the more accurate, belief is one possible action of a will.
How about the also accurate, action and will even in the absence of
belief or in the presence of doubt will (often) succeed?
This is part of why I implied earlier that you don't seem to know much
about science. If you had done any significant amount of science you
ought to have realized that science is about 90% contradicting the ideas
you start out with because reality turns out different than you think it
is. That's the whole value to it, that action proves superior in truth
value than belief alone.
I believe the world is flat... etc. etc.
A stage magician get's out of a trap by a back door. A whole audience is
staring at the trap, *believing* he is inside of it. His action proves
superior than the weight of all their belief. He doesn't even have to
"believe" himself out- consider if he knocked himself out and then
*accidentally* fell to saftey out the back door. He'd still be out and
clear. Unlikely, but clearly possible. No belief needed- *his* or
*theirs*.
Maybe the universe is all an illusion, a dream within a dream, ad
infinitum absurdum, whatever- the point that misses is that may all be
well and true but neither *I* nor *you* get to make up the basic rules
by which things work. If you do know someone who *is* in charge, send
them to me, because I have some pent up violence and anger at the
unvierse I could take out on them.
I often doubt my magical operations. But it doesn't seem to have much
relationship to even my own assessments and tests of magical success.
Any doubt, before, after, or during is pretty irrelevant to success
unless it gets so bad that I screw up my *actions* with "stage fright".
Favorable conditions + competent action = high probability of success
(within basic human performance limitations- everyone screws up
sometime).
Heck, it's true that performance anxiety can cause difficulties with
male erectile function or standardized testing. I'm not surprised that
performance anxiety can impede or snooker magical performance, but
contradict it at a basic or structural level- no way!
That would place each and every magician hostage completely and utterly
at the whim of any cynical or doubtful audience. Even comedians don't
have it that bad, there are at least a *few* ways to work a hostile
crowd. If that was true, I'd quit magic. I'm not joking about that. What
a pathetic worthless useless ability it would be. I mean what would be
the use in magic if it was really like that?
But it's not, not even if *you* believe it to be.
aikeena
dagon productions
>
> dagon productions wrote:
> >
> > aikeena wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I have met several individuals, and I am one myself, whose cultural base
> > > was significantly different enough that the psychic censor problem was
> > > almost non existent. I even developed training methods to either prevent
> > > it's manifestation or quickly dissolve it, one of which is similar to
> > > (though developed independently from) and ancient indian technique
> > > called Darshan. I'd be happy to chat about it in private email Joseph.
> >
> > Please do not take it to email... post here... as this sounds
> > quite interesting.
> >
> > -douglas
>
> No.
>
OK.
> Nothing personal against you, but I learned the hard way that people
> just don't appreciate things that are given away. Joseph from my point
> of view, has earned my respect and the right to share some of whatever
> virtue lies in my personal efforts. The stuff I post here, I post
> because I take pity (yes Richard would chide me) on the poor deluded
> fools I see around here and because I like to chat with people I like.
> But I don't know didly about you. So unless I'm given massive reason to
> think otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time on you. Don't take it
> too hard, like I said it's nothing personal.
>
> aikeena
Understandable... I'll take this as an opportunity to
pick up the trail and see what comes of it.
Best regards,
aikeena
> > No.
> >
>
> OK.
>
[snip]
>
> Understandable... I'll take this as an opportunity to
> pick up the trail and see what comes of it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -douglas
Heh, not bad.
After you do some stuff on your own, if you're still interested look me
up again privately. Maybe we'll talk.
aikeena
Joseph
> aikeena wrote:
>
> > I have met several individuals, and I am one myself, whose cultural base
> > was significantly different enough that the psychic censor problem was
> > almost non existent. I even developed training methods to either prevent
> > it's manifestation or quickly dissolve it, one of which is similar to
> > (though developed independently from) and ancient indian technique
> > called Darshan. I'd be happy to chat about it in private email Joseph.
>
> Please do not take it to email... post here... as this sounds
> quite interesting.
Indeed! Please share this, aikeena.
- J:.M:.555
Joseph
> dagon productions wrote:
> >
> > aikeena wrote:
> >
> > > I have met several individuals, and I am one myself, whose cultural base
> > > was significantly different enough that the psychic censor problem was
> > > almost non existent. I even developed training methods to either prevent
> > > it's manifestation or quickly dissolve it, one of which is similar to
> > > (though developed independently from) and ancient indian technique
> > > called Darshan. I'd be happy to chat about it in private email Joseph.
> >
> > Please do not take it to email... post here... as this sounds
> > quite interesting.
>
> No.
>
> Nothing personal against you, but I learned the hard way that people
> just don't appreciate things that are given away. Joseph from my point
> of view, has earned my respect and the right to share some of whatever
> virtue lies in my personal efforts. The stuff I post here, I post
> because I take pity (yes Richard would chide me) on the poor deluded
> fools I see around here and because I like to chat with people I like.
> But I don't know didly about you. So unless I'm given massive reason to
> think otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time on you. Don't take it
> too hard, like I said it's nothing personal.
Well, even though I said it was alright with me to post such things
publically, I would not presume to dictate to Aikeena how to conduct his
correspondence.
However, though I have never met Douglas in person, and we have had some
interesting differences of opinion, I have no reason to doubt his
intelligence or his dedication to magical scholarship and research -- take
that for what ever it's worth <g>.
- J:.M:.555
richard sprigg
> I often doubt my magical operations.
As do we all, I think: otherwise, why bother with the journal?
But it doesn't seem to have much
> relationship to even my own assessments and tests of magical success.
> Any doubt, before, after, or during is pretty irrelevant to success
> unless it gets so bad that I screw up my *actions* with "stage fright".
This would confirm my experience.
Given the limited viewpoint available to the human being, it is amazing
to me that *anything* works, yet it does, sometimes.
> Favorable conditions + competent action = high probability of success
> (within basic human performance limitations- everyone screws up
> sometime).
Heh. Unless you don't keep a journal.
Bill Everett
aikeena wrote in message <36A4CD...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>Bill Everett wrote:
>
>>
>> How does one do Science? I think Science is more of a subject than an
>> action.
>>
>
>I find this attitude often, especially for those whose experience with
>science consists of memorizing high school or introductory college
>textbooks.
>
Science has been a very large part of my life, even though I am no longer in
school. My current experiences with Science actually occur when I read
scientific journals and papers. I tend to think of Science as a sort of
body of knowledge, ever expanding.
>>
>> I did not say that "science is commonly accepted magick," I said
"Science
>> is explained Magick." Science provides for a deeper understanding of the
>> universe and the way that we (the universe and I) interact. Magick is
>> causing change according to will. Science explains how such changes are
>> made.
>>
>
>Ah, the Arthur C. Clarke notion.
>
Yes, the Arthur C. Clarke notion. I still believe that one day, we will
understand the physical mechanics behind magick and consciousness. I think
Quantum physics and Chaos science are leading us there.
>> >So please, dazzle me and shatter my illusions- show me how my
>> >assumptions are oh so wrong.
>> >
>> >Really, go on, I'm a good sport about being shown up.
>> >
>> >aikeena
>>
>> Why do you want to be shown up? So you can learn? Illusions, spewn
forth,
>> to be shattered.
>>
>> Bill
>
>Hmmm... I do have a number of odd notions. Here's one: belief does not
>dictate reality.
>
>aikeena
What is real? Belief certainly dictates ones perception of reality. Even
if you don't believe it.
Bill
aikeena
> Well, even though I said it was alright with me to post such things
> publically, I would not presume to dictate to Aikeena how to conduct his
> correspondence.
>
> However, though I have never met Douglas in person, and we have had some
> interesting differences of opinion, I have no reason to doubt his
> intelligence or his dedication to magical scholarship and research -- take
> that for what ever it's worth <g>.
>
> - J:.M:.555
Alright. <wince> but just for you Joe.
I'm not trying to keep secrets or anything. I just find that very few
people tend to respect what I have to say, so I try not to waste effort
by trying to make people accept things they just don't want.
I've tried to give this stuff away before, things I've worked on for
years. I got nothing for it but some metaphorical spit on my face.
Give me a chance to collect my thoughts, and I'll post it. I do really
doubt that anyone (including Douglass) except for maybe you or a small
handful of others will really give it any consideration. I'm not bitter
about it, it's just that that's been my overwhelming experience.
But I am entirely willing to make the effort, so let us speak no more of
it at all- when next I post I will post on the subject noted. Actually
for the sake of readability, I will start a new thread called "Joseph
Asked" ;) on which I will break up my collection of notes into several
posts.
aikeena
dagon productions
>
> But I am entirely willing to make the effort, so let us speak no more of
> it at all- when next I post I will post on the subject noted. Actually
> for the sake of readability, I will start a new thread called "Joseph
> Asked" ;) on which I will break up my collection of notes into several
> posts.
>
> aikeena
I look forward to reading your posts.
aikeena
>
> Science has been a very large part of my life, even though I am no longer in
> school. My current experiences with Science actually occur when I read
> scientific journals and papers. I tend to think of Science as a sort of
> body of knowledge, ever expanding.
>
Science is indeed knowledge, which is of course what the word means. But
its function and existence lies as in an acitivity -experimentation,
application, debate, and education. The body of knowledge is an
important aspect, but it is in essence not a *subject* (your words) per
se but an activity of which the body of knowledge is a intemediary tool
of storage and transfer for that knowledge.
> >Ah, the Arthur C. Clarke notion.
> >
>
> Yes, the Arthur C. Clarke notion. I still believe that one day, we will
> understand the physical mechanics behind magick and consciousness. I think
> Quantum physics and Chaos science are leading us there.
>
An interesting unsubstantiated belief.
> >Hmmm... I do have a number of odd notions. Here's one: belief does not
> >dictate reality.
> >
> >aikeena
>
> What is real? Belief certainly dictates ones perception of reality. Even
> if you don't believe it.
>
> Bill
Perception and belief are real, as real as stones and gravity and the
laws of physics or you or me. But they are not *all* that are real, nor
do they encompass the whole of or even a significant minority of all
that is real in kind or quantity. Thus belief does does not dictate
reality, it interacts just like anything else.
That's the point.
aikeena
aikeena
>
> This would confirm my experience.
> Given the limited viewpoint available to the human being, it is amazing
> to me that *anything* works, yet it does, sometimes.
>
I'm often amused by the idea that one has to give up the idea of control
before one can get a handle on the reality of it.
> > Favorable conditions + competent action = high probability of success
> > (within basic human performance limitations- everyone screws up
> > sometime).
>
> Heh. Unless you don't keep a journal.
Well, to be fair Oral tradition can and does adequately substitute. Oral
tradition is harder though, and few people have the patience for it if
they don't have the discipline in the first place to pick up pen and put
it to paper. I use both. It also proved useful for a dyslexic student I
once had.
aikeena
richard sprigg
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
>
> >
> > This would confirm my experience.
> > Given the limited viewpoint available to the human being, it is amazing
> > to me that *anything* works, yet it does, sometimes.
> >
>
> I'm often amused by the idea that one has to give up the idea of control
> before one can get a handle on the reality of it.
>
> > > (within basic human performance limitations- everyone screws up
> > > sometime).
> >
>
> Well, to be fair Oral tradition can and does adequately substitute.
My experience has been that personal recall lies like a cheap rug.
These lies are always plausible and pleasant to the ear, of course.
The old saying that "The older I get, the better I was" illustrates this
point well.
From my POV is that without a record screw-ups become transformed into
victories: (see "charge of the light brigade".)
Thus those without a record make no errors.
aikeena
>
> My experience has been that personal recall lies like a cheap rug.
> These lies are always plausible and pleasant to the ear, of course.
> The old saying that "The older I get, the better I was" illustrates this
> point well.
> From my POV is that without a record screw-ups become transformed into
> victories: (see "charge of the light brigade".)
> Thus those without a record make no errors.
Allot *is* lost in Oral Tradition, that's why it takes so much effort...
all those mnemonics and repetitions and "flash burned" memory images
just to capture a part of what is going on. But for magical traditions
in parts of the world where they didn't have writing, or for people like
my dyslexic student there isn't much alternative.
Myself, I use it to suplement and not replace my journal notes. Even
then I have to be continually trying to be brutally honest to weed out
as many rationalizations as possible.
aikeena
Erwin Hessle
aikeena wrote in message <36AB41...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>Allot *is* lost in Oral Tradition, that's why it takes so much effort...
>all those mnemonics and repetitions and "flash burned" memory images
>just to capture a part of what is going on. But for magical traditions
>in parts of the world where they didn't have writing, or for people like
>my dyslexic student there isn't much alternative.
What a load of crap:
a) Ask someone else to write it down, and if necessary, read it back
b) Use audio cassettes
c) Learn Braille
Three alternatives in as many seconds. Your problem is that you don't try
hard enough. In an imperfect situation, you accept that the world is against
you, and just wallow in self-pity. Use your brain, and you will find there
are a lot more solutions out there than the ones you have been conditioned
to accept, Ike. You don't set a very good example for your "student". You
claim to be adept at survival, but in reality, you're just adept at hiding
from effort, hiding from unpleasantness, and hiding from yourself.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Joseph
> aikeena wrote in message <36AB41...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>
> >Allot *is* lost in Oral Tradition, that's why it takes so much effort...
> >all those mnemonics and repetitions and "flash burned" memory images
> >just to capture a part of what is going on. But for magical traditions
> >in parts of the world where they didn't have writing, or for people like
> >my dyslexic student there isn't much alternative.
>
> What a load of crap:
>
> a) Ask someone else to write it down, and if necessary, read it back
> b) Use audio cassettes
> c) Learn Braille
There are other advantages to passing down oral traditions that compensate
for a lack of a "hard copy" record. The process of memorization itself
allows for inculcation of knowledge in a way that reading doesn't do
alone. Ask the Navajos what they think about it...
And in the cases where a culture has no written language (like the
Navajo), they would be unlikely to have audio cassttes or braille, don't
you think?
> Three alternatives in as many seconds. Your problem is that you don't try
> hard enough. In an imperfect situation, you accept that the world is against
> you, and just wallow in self-pity. Use your brain, and you will find there
> are a lot more solutions out there than the ones you have been conditioned
> to accept, Ike. You don't set a very good example for your "student". You
> claim to be adept at survival, but in reality, you're just adept at hiding
> from effort, hiding from unpleasantness, and hiding from yourself.
I rather doubt anyone who is 4 years down the path toward a PhD can be
accused of "hiding from effort", Winnie...
- J:.M:.555
richard sprigg
>
> Allot *is* lost in Oral Tradition, that's why it takes so much effort...
> all those mnemonics and repetitions and "flash burned" memory images
> just to capture a part of what is going on. But for magical traditions
> in parts of the world where they didn't have writing, or for people like
> my dyslexic student there isn't much alternative.
I know a guy who uses a basic cassette recorder for both magickal
record, drean diary and personal journal.
He has trouble expressing himself in writing, and finds the tape method
useful, especially for the dream diary.
My objection to reliance on memory is simply observation of the human
condition.
Remember Woodstock? I knew a girl who was really there. The day after
she got back she told us a horror story of rain, mud and misery. A week
later, she had decided it was a magnificent experience that defined her
life. Such is memory.
Erwin Hessle
Joseph wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
>> aikeena wrote in message <36AB41...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>>
>> >all those mnemonics and repetitions and "flash burned" memory images
>> >just to capture a part of what is going on. But for magical traditions
>> >in parts of the world where they didn't have writing, or for people like
>> >my dyslexic student there isn't much alternative.
>>
>>
>> a) Ask someone else to write it down, and if necessary, read it back
>> b) Use audio cassettes
>> c) Learn Braille
>
>There are other advantages to passing down oral traditions that compensate
>for a lack of a "hard copy" record. The process of memorization itself
>allows for inculcation of knowledge in a way that reading doesn't do
>alone. Ask the Navajos what they think about it...
>
>And in the cases where a culture has no written language (like the
>Navajo), they would be unlikely to have audio cassttes or braille, don't
>you think?
Do stick to the subject at hand, Joey. A dyslexic student in the United
States is subject to none of these restrictions, so your points are as
irrelevant as you are. He has plenty of alternatives to mere memory, all of
which would be open to him if he and his "teacher" weren't so desperate to
be martyrs.
>> Three alternatives in as many seconds. Your problem is that you don't try
>> hard enough. In an imperfect situation, you accept that the world is
against
>> you, and just wallow in self-pity. Use your brain, and you will find
there
>> are a lot more solutions out there than the ones you have been
conditioned
>> to accept, Ike. You don't set a very good example for your "student". You
>> claim to be adept at survival, but in reality, you're just adept at
hiding
>> from effort, hiding from unpleasantness, and hiding from yourself.
>
>I rather doubt anyone who is 4 years down the path toward a PhD can be
>accused of "hiding from effort", Winnie...
Of course they can. Studying for a PhD is just an escape from having to deal
with the real world.
Don't forget to wash your mouth out when you pull your tongue from Ike's
arse, Joey.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Bill Everett
aikeena wrote in message <36A8CA...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>Bill Everett wrote:
>
>>
>> Science has been a very large part of my life, even though I am no longer
in
>> school. My current experiences with Science actually occur when I read
>> scientific journals and papers. I tend to think of Science as a sort of
>> body of knowledge, ever expanding.
>>
>
>Science is indeed knowledge, which is of course what the word means. But
>its function and existence lies as in an acitivity -experimentation,
>application, debate, and education. The body of knowledge is an
>important aspect, but it is in essence not a *subject* (your words) per
>se but an activity of which the body of knowledge is a intemediary tool
>of storage and transfer for that knowledge.
>
>
So what is the activity? There are certainly many actions associated with
building on this body of knowledge or using this body. Are these the
activities of Science?
>> >Ah, the Arthur C. Clarke notion.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, the Arthur C. Clarke notion. I still believe that one day, we will
>> understand the physical mechanics behind magick and consciousness. I
think
>> Quantum physics and Chaos science are leading us there.
>>
>
>An interesting unsubstantiated belief.
>
>
Quantum physics and Chaos science have made the biggest strides toward
explaining consciousness.
>> >Hmmm... I do have a number of odd notions. Here's one: belief does not
>> >dictate reality.
>> >
>> >aikeena
>>
>> What is real? Belief certainly dictates ones perception of reality.
Even
>> if you don't believe it.
>>
>> Bill
>
>Perception and belief are real, as real as stones and gravity and the
>laws of physics or you or me. But they are not *all* that are real, nor
>do they encompass the whole of or even a significant minority of all
>that is real in kind or quantity. Thus belief does does not dictate
>reality, it interacts just like anything else.
>
>That's the point.
>
>aikeena
Belief dictates ones perception of reality. No one can know what is real
outside their perceptions of reality. Maybe there is something out there
besides what we perceive, maybe not. There is no proof either way, and I
suspect that such proof is not forthcoming.
No one can prove that they are not completely deluding themselves as to the
nature of reality. They may only believe that they suffer from delusions or
that they do not. There is no way (currently known) to determine.
Bill
Joe Cosby
ALSO SPRACH "Bill Everett":
>
> aikeena wrote in message <36A8CA...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
> >Bill Everett wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Science has been a very large part of my life, even though I am no longer
> in
> >> school. My current experiences with Science actually occur when I read
> >> scientific journals and papers. I tend to think of Science as a sort of
> >> body of knowledge, ever expanding.
> >>
> >
> >Science is indeed knowledge, which is of course what the word means. But
> >its function and existence lies as in an acitivity -experimentation,
> >application, debate, and education. The body of knowledge is an
> >important aspect, but it is in essence not a *subject* (your words) per
> >se but an activity of which the body of knowledge is a intemediary tool
> >of storage and transfer for that knowledge.
> >
> >
>
> So what is the activity? There are certainly many actions associated with
> building on this body of knowledge or using this body. Are these the
> activities of Science?
>
Given a concept, the scientific method allows the concept to be tested and
rejected if logically inconsistant.
The scientific method does not provide for the production of concepts to
be tested; science, if applied purely, would require all conceivable
concepts to be tested in the order in which they occurred randomly.
If we had truly applied that method, we wouldn't have gotten around to
inventing fire yet.
> >> >Ah, the Arthur C. Clarke notion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, the Arthur C. Clarke notion. I still believe that one day, we will
> >> understand the physical mechanics behind magick and consciousness. I
> think
> >> Quantum physics and Chaos science are leading us there.
> >>
> >
> >An interesting unsubstantiated belief.
> >
> >
>
> Quantum physics and Chaos science have made the biggest strides toward
> explaining consciousness.
>
But any form of science (again, in a purist sense) requires that knowledge
be -objectifiable-. That is, I must be able to present an object of knowledge
to you, and it must have the same meaning to you as it does to me.
So, if I say, "there is a pencil on the table in the next room", if you
go into the room, you can look at the table and determine if I am lying
or telling the truth. In either case, the reality is objective.
But -consciousness-...
Are you (Bill Everett) conscious, or are you a machine simulating consciousness?
You would -tell- me you are conscious, but you cannot prove it. The knowledge
is not objectifiable. From where -I- sit, the distinction cannot be made for
-you-.
Ironically, you mention Arthur Clarke. The skinny self-righteous bastard.
(OK, that wasn't nice.) He invented the HAL computer, a conscious machine.
(You know, from '2001: A Space Odyssey'). He predicted that by 2001 we
would have computers like that. Artificial intelligence so sophisticated
that it would be not only practically but -philosophically- indistinguishable (sp?)
from human consciousness. Now, 30 years later, not only are we nowhere near that
in AI, we can't even get voice recognition software which works.
The thing is, with quantum physics, chaos, and consciousness: the human brain
seems to function mechanically dependant to a large degree on the discharge
of neuronal synapses. A largish percentage of these discharges can be
triggered by a very low level of electrical potential difference; such that
determining whether some neurons will or will not discharge becomes
-indeterminable- because the requisite level of accumulated electrons falls
within the quantities of Heisenbergian indeterminacy.
Further, the effect of this percentage of indeterminate discharges, occuring
within the complex feedback potential of the human brain, can become
magnified indefinitely within a chaotic process.
Therefore; the 'explanation' of consciousness becoming available to modern
science is becoming that conscious action, by it's very nature, is indeterminable
but not necessarily random.
In terms of traditional science, this idea is revolutionary. Orthodox scientists
are puking their guts out about it. (Or refusing to accept it, really.)
> >> >Hmmm... I do have a number of odd notions. Here's one: belief does not
> >> >dictate reality.
> >> >
> >> >aikeena
> >>
> >> What is real? Belief certainly dictates ones perception of reality.
> Even
> >> if you don't believe it.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> >Perception and belief are real, as real as stones and gravity and the
> >laws of physics or you or me. But they are not *all* that are real, nor
> >do they encompass the whole of or even a significant minority of all
> >that is real in kind or quantity. Thus belief does does not dictate
> >reality, it interacts just like anything else.
> >
> >That's the point.
> >
> >aikeena
>
> Belief dictates ones perception of reality. No one can know what is real
> outside their perceptions of reality. Maybe there is something out there
> besides what we perceive, maybe not. There is no proof either way, and I
> suspect that such proof is not forthcoming.
>
> No one can prove that they are not completely deluding themselves as to the
> nature of reality. They may only believe that they suffer from delusions or
> that they do not. There is no way (currently known) to determine.
>
> Bill
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Cosby
Devout member of the Church of Amiga since 1990
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it" - Goethe
----------------------------------------------------
Spacecabbage
>Belief dictates ones perception of reality. No one can know what is real
>outside their perceptions of reality. Maybe there is something out there
>besides what we perceive, maybe not. There is no proof either way, and I
>suspect that such proof is not forthcoming.
>
>No one can prove that they are not completely deluding themselves as to the
>nature of reality. They may only believe that they suffer from delusions
or
>that they do not. There is no way (currently known) to determine.
>
>Bill
>
just that reality. Reality is a lot like color in that sense. What we call
red is more accurately what we all agree is red.
Science has allowed us to put numerical values on what fequencies of visible
light are agreed to as being red, but I don't think an undeniable
explanation of why we percieve colors the way we do in our minds is at hand.
We would have to understnad completely how we perceive things and how this
affects reality before we could say for sure if there is anything else or
not.
Spacecabbage
aikeena
> >I rather doubt anyone who is 4 years down the path toward a PhD can be
> >accused of "hiding from effort", Winnie...
>
> Of course they can. Studying for a PhD is just an escape from having to deal
> with the real world.
>
> Don't forget to wash your mouth out when you pull your tongue from Ike's
> arse, Joey.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
You are such a card, Erwin. Do I sense a little spite in your tone
maybe? Ah well, truly I must say honestly, truly honestly I almost burst
out laughing when I first read your message. It had been a difficult
day, and your message put the dancing light of mirth back into my eyes.
But then I read the last part. I don't care what you call me, Erwin.
That amounts to nothing. Nothing at all. But I ask you to refrain from
insulting my friends. What goes on between you and me, should stay that
way. Unless among all your other faults, you're such a coward to boot
that you take out your personal emotional difficulties on someone else
besides the source.
Not that it would surprise me, but even after everything I did have a
certain amount of respect for your dedication even if I disagreed with
its pointlessness. Unlike you, apparently I can separate my perceptions
of individuals from my opinions about them.
Attempting to insult others with scatological and sexual innuendos is
*so* so utterly tacky Erwin. And while I really don't care about
someone's filthy mouth, I do pity someone if their mind is so clouded. I
had such a higher opinion of you, Erwin, truly. Simply because I dislike
someone or even oppose them is no reason in my mind to falsely
disrespect them. I've had many an enemy I respected far more than some
of my genuine friends.
aikeena
aikeena
> Given a concept, the scientific method allows the concept to be tested and
> rejected if logically inconsistant.
>
> The scientific method does not provide for the production of concepts to
> be tested; science, if applied purely, would require all conceivable
> concepts to be tested in the order in which they occurred randomly.
>
> If we had truly applied that method, we wouldn't have gotten around to
> inventing fire yet.
>
Umm, actually as I last recall (and I could be mistaken, so please
correct me) the first step in the usual definition of the scientific
method is the production of a hypothesis to test. So actually, the
scientific method does provide for the seeking and production of
concepts to be tested. Rather both classical and common everyday
scientific endeavour actually.
And to be historically accurate, the scientific method didn't emerge
until the Rennaisance and the rediscovery of the Greek Classic through
Arabic preservation. At least that's how I understand it. Certainly
scientific advances were made before then - people just made
observations and haphazard guesses to explain them. Aristotle is a
perfect example of this.
I should note to that many important modern inventions - like Teflon-
occur by a process called serendipity. No testing, searching, guessing
whatever- just BOOM! - a fortitous event happens and we see some benefit
so we coopt it. No scientific method whatsoever, unless you want to
define the method as anytime anyone sees anything advantageous to them
and uses it. Which is reather different from both the common and strict
definitions. I imagine fire was discovered and used by a similar
process.
>
> But any form of science (again, in a purist sense) requires that knowledge
> be -objectifiable-. That is, I must be able to present an object of knowledge
> to you, and it must have the same meaning to you as it does to me.
>
> So, if I say, "there is a pencil on the table in the next room", if you
> go into the room, you can look at the table and determine if I am lying
> or telling the truth. In either case, the reality is objective.
>
> But -consciousness-...
>
That's an easy one, consciousness doesn't exist, per se. There you go,
problem solved.
aikeena
aikeena
>
> aikeena wrote in message <36AB41...@river.it.gvsu.edu>...
>
> >Allot *is* lost in Oral Tradition, that's why it takes so much effort...
> >all those mnemonics and repetitions and "flash burned" memory images
> >just to capture a part of what is going on. But for magical traditions
> >in parts of the world where they didn't have writing, or for people like
> >my dyslexic student there isn't much alternative.
>
> What a load of crap:
>
> a) Ask someone else to write it down, and if necessary, read it back
> b) Use audio cassettes
> c) Learn Braille
>
> hard enough. In an imperfect situation, you accept that the world is against
> you, and just wallow in self-pity. Use your brain, and you will find there
> are a lot more solutions out there than the ones you have been conditioned
> to accept, Ike. You don't set a very good example for your "student". You
> claim to be adept at survival, but in reality, you're just adept at hiding
> from effort, hiding from unpleasantness, and hiding from yourself.
>
Umm Erwin, if my student is dyslexic how exactly is he supposed to read
the notes when no one else is there? Not a very good way to become an
independent magician. I suppose he could hire a full time assistant just
for that purpose, but really how many people can afford that expense?
Not that many. I suppose he could always enlist a spouse, but not all
spouses are into each others activities and to merely marry someone to
have an assistant would be quite sad don't you think?
Next, if he doesn't feel like constantly fast forwarding or rewinding
through hours of tape, he's going to have to remember it anyway which
amounts to an elementary Oral Tradition. Besides, audio cassetes of many
important magical works classical or modern aren't commonly available if
at all. To obtain them would mean that someone would have to manufacture
the tapes especially for him since he can't read the originals, leading
him to be dependent upon others on an ongoing to simply *consult his
notes*.
Same problem as above Erwin- lack of braille editions of magical work,
and since he can't read the originals he can't make them for himself.
You did offer three suggestions in as many seconds. Too bad, that none
of them contained even that much serious thought.
Really, Erwin, that's not an insult I just gave you. That's the truth.
I'm really shocked, I mean that effort was *pathetic*. I'm not just
saying that insult you, I really am shocked. I don't use that word often
Erwin, but I feel positively embarressed for you. Truly, that's no joke.
Are you feeling okay? If you like, we can go at it another time. No need
to put up a brave show old man, everyone has moments of weakness.
Whether or not you believe it, while I doubt I'll ever be going out of
my way to *help* you... I really don't see a need to kick a man when
he's down. My embaressment over this matter is quite genuine.
And Erwin, if I was so great at hiding from unpleasantness I'd certainly
wouldn't be exchanging posts with you would I? I mean I can see the
plaque on your desk now- Erwin Hessle: Unpleasantness Defined.
Sorry, maybe just one little kick, just one little funny. But only
because you said such a poor thing to Joseph. That really was naughty
Erwin. Oh, and don't imagine I was incensed about it. I wasn't, though I
was made a little more serious. Though on second thought you may imagine
such a thing if it makes you feel better since you've obviously had such
a bad day.
You have my permission.
aikeena
aikeena
aikeena
> >
> >Science is indeed knowledge, which is of course what the word means. But
> >its function and existence lies as in an acitivity -experimentation,
> >application, debate, and education. The body of knowledge is an
> >important aspect, but it is in essence not a *subject* (your words) per
> >se but an activity of which the body of knowledge is a intemediary tool
> >of storage and transfer for that knowledge.
> >
> >
>
> So what is the activity? There are certainly many actions associated with
> building on this body of knowledge or using this body. Are these the
> activities of Science?
>
Science is a search for knowledge and its testing, debate, and sharing
by certain methodologies that have come to be accepted as useful in
resolving conflicts of intepretation between differing theories and
theoretical proponents. Certainly a body of knowledge is instrumental
toward accomplishing this activity, but it is not Science itself.
I'm surprised that you have such a hard time, with this concept. Let's
try a metaphor. Suppose I say that you are your life and the
actitivities within your life define it. You say that you think a person
is their body. I say that while a body is important to carrying out a
person's life, merely having a body does not constitute having a life or
the activities carried out therein.
More illuminating perhaps?
> >An interesting unsubstantiated belief.
> >
> >
>
> Quantum physics and Chaos science have made the biggest strides toward
> explaining consciousness.
>
Please, I do Quantum mechanics and Chaos mathematics and debate it with
proffessionals in the field. No one has even made a peep about Quantum
Mech being related to consciousness. It's certainly illuminating as a
metaphor, but if you had really done a significant amount of Quantum
you'd realize that allot of it is merely different forms of
significantly difficult mathematical formalism that has no meaning.
Really, I spent two years studying the subject (and plan to continue
more) and formulating a theory regarding the matter, which while I have
not yet submitted it to publication has been generously received by
those physicists I have put it to. To simplify the idea is: the
mathematical formalism like much of math does not mimic reality, rather
it is an abstract solution that is correct under the Uniqueness theorum,
but not signficantly insightful. It is in short, the fly wheel of God,
and not a reflection of his mind. I am toying with the idea of full
publication, but I have to get two other papers out of the way first.
> >Perception and belief are real, as real as stones and gravity and the
> >laws of physics or you or me. But they are not *all* that are real, nor
> >do they encompass the whole of or even a significant minority of all
> >that is real in kind or quantity. Thus belief does does not dictate
> >reality, it interacts just like anything else.
> >
> >That's the point.
> >
> >aikeena
>
> Belief dictates ones perception of reality. No one can know what is real
> outside their perceptions of reality. Maybe there is something out there
> besides what we perceive, maybe not. There is no proof either way, and I
> suspect that such proof is not forthcoming.
>
> No one can prove that they are not completely deluding themselves as to the
> nature of reality. They may only believe that they suffer from delusions or
> that they do not. There is no way (currently known) to determine.
>
> Bill
Look Bill, since you seem to be having trouble with the concept I'll try
breaking it down into small peices. Your perceptions, everyone's
perceptions are real. They are real asa anything else. But like
everything else is real, they don't as far as we know alter the previous
reality of other things retroactively.
That's the point, real is a relative word. Real is only useful as a
comparison to other stuff. You don't get to make up the rules, I don't
get to make up the rules. You can't point out to me anyone who can. If
you can't make up the rules, I call that objective reality. You may not,
that's not the point.
The point is that if you jump off a building, you will likely cease to
exist as a living being in my reality. Do I really care if you might be
still alive on Mars in your reality? Not really, as far as I'm concerned
you would be dead.
Now personally, I'm not willing to jump off buildings just to find out
if there are other realities. That's just me however since I have fallen
from a signficant height into the ground. Didn't like the experience
though I didn't recieve so much as a bruise.
As for the rest it's what we call in science, the inability to prove an
absolute negative positively in absolute terms in the deductive
sciences, or the problem of Induction as discussed by Hume in the
empirical ones. The logical positivists in philosophy have something
along the same lines called Godel's Theorum (much misunderstood). Those
are the ideas can be summarized as saying that no idea can completely be
sure of its correctness except by assumption. Which amounts to the same
thing you are saying, though the people involved didn't really imagine
that they could make up the rules.
So as long as you're in the same reality as me, why don't you just give
up trying to determine what is "really" real (which if reality is
subjective, is a moot point anyway) and just concentrate on not falling
off high elevations onto hard surfaces. I know that's what I do.
aikeena
Joe Cosby
ALSO SPRACH aikeena:
> Joe Cosby wrote:
>
> > Given a concept, the scientific method allows the concept to be tested and
> > rejected if logically inconsistant.
> >
> > The scientific method does not provide for the production of concepts to
> > be tested; science, if applied purely, would require all conceivable
> > concepts to be tested in the order in which they occurred randomly.
> >
> > If we had truly applied that method, we wouldn't have gotten around to
> > inventing fire yet.
> >
>
> Umm, actually as I last recall (and I could be mistaken, so please
> correct me) the first step in the usual definition of the scientific
> method is the production of a hypothesis to test. So actually, the
> scientific method does provide for the seeking and production of
> concepts to be tested. Rather both classical and common everyday
> scientific endeavour actually.
>
It doesn't provide for it. It assumes the hypothesis to be there
already to be tested.
What is the scientific method for producing a hypothesis?
> And to be historically accurate, the scientific method didn't emerge
> until the Rennaisance and the rediscovery of the Greek Classic through
> Arabic preservation. At least that's how I understand it. Certainly
> scientific advances were made before then - people just made
> observations and haphazard guesses to explain them. Aristotle is a
> perfect example of this.
>
> I should note to that many important modern inventions - like Teflon-
> occur by a process called serendipity.
A Miracle! PRAISE BOB!
It is well known that teflon was bob's first miracle. Or was it portable
vacuum cleaners...sources differ.
> No testing, searching, guessing
> whatever- just BOOM! - a fortitous event happens and we see some benefit
> so we coopt it.
Exactly. I think REAL scientists probably find that annoying. And
well they should. They should complain to their union. I would.
> No scientific method whatsoever, unless you want to
> define the method as anytime anyone sees anything advantageous to them
> and uses it. Which is reather different from both the common and strict
> definitions. I imagine fire was discovered and used by a similar
> process.
>
>
>
> >
> > But any form of science (again, in a purist sense) requires that knowledge
> > be -objectifiable-. That is, I must be able to present an object of knowledge
> > to you, and it must have the same meaning to you as it does to me.
> >
> > So, if I say, "there is a pencil on the table in the next room", if you
> > go into the room, you can look at the table and determine if I am lying
> > or telling the truth. In either case, the reality is objective.
> >
> > But -consciousness-...
> >
>
> That's an easy one, consciousness doesn't exist, per se. There you go,
> problem solved.
>
Are you being ironic, or do you really mean that?
OK, consciousness doesn't exist. Including yours. So, who is experiencing
the fallacy of experiencing aikeena's life?
> aikeena
Joseph
because I missed it...
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, aikeena wrote:
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
> > >I rather doubt anyone who is 4 years down the path toward a PhD can be
> > >accused of "hiding from effort", Winnie...
> >
> > Of course they can. Studying for a PhD is just an escape from having to deal
> > with the real world.
Not in hard science, especially in Theoretical Physics.
> > Don't forget to wash your mouth out when you pull your tongue from Ike's
> > arse, Joey.
Well, I don't know if you want me to stop, Winnie. It seems to be
fulfilling some sort of fantasy for you. Do you like to watch?
Might as well charge a few sigils while you're at it. Shame to waste all
that "hara"...
(Aikeena: Well said, friend, but consider the source.)
- J:.M:.555
"Beware the Chaotes, for they are unsubtle and quick to laugh!"
aikeena
> > Umm, actually as I last recall (and I could be mistaken, so please
> > correct me) the first step in the usual definition of the scientific
> > method is the production of a hypothesis to test. So actually, the
> > scientific method does provide for the seeking and production of
> > concepts to be tested. Rather both classical and common everyday
> > scientific endeavour actually.
> >
>
> It doesn't provide for it. It assumes the hypothesis to be there
> already to be tested.
>
> What is the scientific method for producing a hypothesis?
>
Actually as I recall, it's the first step. Step 1) Produce a Hypothesis.
Don't trust my admittedly faulty memory, go ahead- look it up. If I'm
wrong, I'll gladly admit it, publicly. I have no purpose in supporting
my ego in denying reality.
> > I should note to that many important modern inventions - like Teflon-
> > occur by a process called serendipity.
>
> A Miracle! PRAISE BOB!
>
> It is well known that teflon was bob's first miracle. Or was it portable
> vacuum cleaners...sources differ.
>
You're progressing to the inane. Not that I morally dissaprove mind you,
I morally disapprove of very few things- I just wanted to inform you in
case you didn't know.
>
> Exactly. I think REAL scientists probably find that annoying. And
> well they should. They should complain to their union. I would.
>
What is a 'real' scientist? Either you do science, and are one, or you
don't and you're not. As far as I can tell, no one has ever issued a
widely accepted license or certification to do science. It's not like
medicine, anyone can be a scientist if they can do science. The action
defines the man.
> >
> > That's an easy one, consciousness doesn't exist, per se. There you go,
> > problem solved.
> >
>
> Are you being ironic, or do you really mean that?
>
Have you considered the possibility, that I might both mean it *and* be
ironic in my meaning?
> OK, consciousness doesn't exist. Including yours. So, who is experiencing
> the fallacy of experiencing aikeena's life?
>
> > aikeena
>
> Joe Cosby
Well, certainly not me. ;)
You see, it all depends on how you define things.
Does a wave exist? It's here and then it's gone, lapsed back into the
sea. Where does it begin or end? Where do you draw the arbitrary
boundaries where a wave or a person begins or ends?
I and thee am nothing more than a wave breaking into foam and spray on
the shoals of the universe's sea.
An ego or consciousness doesn't exist per se, it's only a handy
referential (in this case self referential) tool ... an approximation if
you will. We draw some arbitrary boundaries where we see apparent
disjunctions and discontinuities and use them as conveniences for our
actions. I do this for 'my' benefit. You do that for 'your' benefit.
Handy tool, consciousness - unless one get's obsessed by it and takes
action that contradict its very purpose.
But then we forget that the boundaries are arbitrary, and then start to
squabble over them as if they were real, and actually more important
than the utility that gave rise to them. This is 'me'. That is 'you'.
This is 'mine'. That is 'yours'. In fact everything we are, everything
we have, is but on loan from the universe. It is ours for only a brief
time, and then passes onto existence and eternity and infinity. If you
can accept that about that which you own, those that you love, why
cannot you accept that about that which you are?
I mean, people draw a line in the ground to make it easier to deal with
each other. Here, my land ends. There, your land begins. But then we
start wars and kill over them, contradicting the very purpose of
establishing those boundaries- convenience.
The land does not care or does not know where men draw boundaries on it,
it only knows and cares what men do to it or with it whoever they are.
So too, the universe does not care in general where you and I choose to
draw arbitrary boundaries on it, where you or I begin and where you or I
end, it only cares what you or I do.
aikeena
richard sprigg
>
> An ego or consciousness doesn't exist per se, it's only a handy
> referential (in this case self referential) tool ... an approximation if
> you will. We draw some arbitrary boundaries where we see apparent
> disjunctions and discontinuities and use them as conveniences for our
> actions. I do this for 'my' benefit. You do that for 'your' benefit.
> Handy tool, consciousness - unless one get's obsessed by it and takes
> action that contradict its very purpose.
You are describing "The girders of the soul".
They are both real and illusory.
>
> But then we forget that the boundaries are arbitrary, and then start to squabble over them as if they were real,
Fighting over definitions of the indefinable.
sounds about par to me.
Is mind external or internal?
Joe Cosby
ALSO SPRACH aikeena:
> Joe Cosby wrote:
>
> > > Umm, actually as I last recall (and I could be mistaken, so please
> > > correct me) the first step in the usual definition of the scientific
> > > method is the production of a hypothesis to test. So actually, the
> > > scientific method does provide for the seeking and production of
> > > concepts to be tested. Rather both classical and common everyday
> > > scientific endeavour actually.
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't provide for it. It assumes the hypothesis to be there
> > already to be tested.
> >
> > What is the scientific method for producing a hypothesis?
> >
>
>
> Actually as I recall, it's the first step. Step 1) Produce a Hypothesis.
> Don't trust my admittedly faulty memory, go ahead- look it up. If I'm
> wrong, I'll gladly admit it, publicly. I have no purpose in supporting
> my ego in denying reality.
>
Well that's the thing. The hypothesis must exist -before- a scientific
process really begins.
Originally, IIRC, I was responding to someone saying that via quantum
physics and chaos theory science was close to explaining consciousness,
which I think is a misapprehension. I think we're more or less in agreement,
I think we're kind of doing point-counterpoint but we both have the same
point.
> > > I should note to that many important modern inventions - like Teflon-
> > > occur by a process called serendipity.
> >
> > A Miracle! PRAISE BOB!
> >
> > It is well known that teflon was bob's first miracle. Or was it portable
> > vacuum cleaners...sources differ.
> >
>
> You're progressing to the inane. Not that I morally dissaprove mind you,
> I morally disapprove of very few things- I just wanted to inform you in
> case you didn't know.
>
I have a large inane streak in me.
> >
> > Exactly. I think REAL scientists probably find that annoying. And
> > well they should. They should complain to their union. I would.
> >
>
> What is a 'real' scientist? Either you do science, and are one, or you
> don't and you're not. As far as I can tell, no one has ever issued a
> widely accepted license or certification to do science. It's not like
> medicine, anyone can be a scientist if they can do science. The action
> defines the man.
>
I tend to think of 'science' as having a kind of orthodoxy. I think in modern
American culture, there is a kind of 'orthodox' belief that 'science has
explained everything, or can'; a kind of vague version of absolute
determinism. So, now, determinism is bounded by quantum indeterminacy
and chaos, but I think still the idea of a mindless mechanistic reality
is dominant.
Granted, it is sloppy of me to refer to this as 'science', but I don't
really know another way of referring to it. And I think this is close
to the popular idea of what a 'real scientist' is. Especially among
those who have never really studied or practiced science, especially
at the theoretical level.
> > >
> > > That's an easy one, consciousness doesn't exist, per se. There you go,
> > > problem solved.
> > >
> >
> > Are you being ironic, or do you really mean that?
> >
>
> Have you considered the possibility, that I might both mean it *and* be
> ironic in my meaning?
>
Oh, I get a headache trying to do that.
> > OK, consciousness doesn't exist. Including yours. So, who is experiencing
> > the fallacy of experiencing aikeena's life?
> >
> > > aikeena
> >
> > Joe Cosby
>
> Well, certainly not me. ;)
>
> You see, it all depends on how you define things.
>
> Does a wave exist? It's here and then it's gone, lapsed back into the
> sea. Where does it begin or end? Where do you draw the arbitrary
> boundaries where a wave or a person begins or ends?
>
> I and thee am nothing more than a wave breaking into foam and spray on
> the shoals of the universe's sea.
>
> An ego or consciousness doesn't exist per se, it's only a handy
> referential (in this case self referential) tool ... an approximation if
> you will. We draw some arbitrary boundaries where we see apparent
> disjunctions and discontinuities and use them as conveniences for our
> actions. I do this for 'my' benefit. You do that for 'your' benefit.
> Handy tool, consciousness - unless one get's obsessed by it and takes
> action that contradict its very purpose.
>
OK, but I differentiate between 'ego' and 'consciousness', in this
context.
Seeing magick in practice, especially, has tended me to the belief
that mind is one, that the distinction of ego is and illusion,
or arbitrary as you say.
But I think the reality of -experiencing-, with regard to whatever
referent, is undeniable. This is what I mean by 'consciousness'.
'Sentience' might be a better word.
> But then we forget that the boundaries are arbitrary, and then start to
> squabble over them as if they were real, and actually more important
> than the utility that gave rise to them. This is 'me'. That is 'you'.
> This is 'mine'. That is 'yours'. In fact everything we are, everything
> we have, is but on loan from the universe. It is ours for only a brief
> time, and then passes onto existence and eternity and infinity. If you
> can accept that about that which you own, those that you love, why
> cannot you accept that about that which you are?
>
> I mean, people draw a line in the ground to make it easier to deal with
> each other. Here, my land ends. There, your land begins. But then we
> start wars and kill over them, contradicting the very purpose of
> establishing those boundaries- convenience.
>
> The land does not care or does not know where men draw boundaries on it,
> it only knows and cares what men do to it or with it whoever they are.
>
> So too, the universe does not care in general where you and I choose to
> draw arbitrary boundaries on it, where you or I begin and where you or I
> end, it only cares what you or I do.
>
This is diverging a little from the direction of the thread...
I think 'consciousness without referent' and 'no consciousness at all'
would be identical. Without the illusion of seperation, if we experienced
the universe as one (which, I suspect, is how it really is) then we would
have no referent.
How did Alan Watts put it? 'The universe is God hiding from himself'.
Something like that.
Theologians used to wonder how a good god could create a universe
with evil in it. A truly omnipotent god could not have done it
any other way.
Still. I think Bob might have done better, if he'd been given a chance.
I see nothing evil about teflon, after all.
Remember: Bob spelled backwards is still 'bob'. I think there is a great
lesson there for us.
aikeena
>
> You are describing "The girders of the soul".
> They are both real and illusory.
Most illusions are.
> >
> > But then we forget that the boundaries are arbitrary, and then start to squabble over them as if they were real,
>
> Fighting over definitions of the indefinable.
> sounds about par to me.
>
> Is mind external or internal?
That would first require defining what is external or internal, by way
of whatever axiomatic assumptions you used the question could be likely
answered as a tautology.
Descartes spent allot of time on this problem, and I can't say I really
see the point besides managing to bore me a great deal.
Is blood external or internal? Sometimes it "is", sometimes it "isn't"
even given simplistic conventional definitions of external and internal.
And we can see blood.
I think mind is a quality - like fire. If one where to ask the question
"What static ensemble or predictable flow of material particles define
the structure, position, and future causality of a fire?" I think most
people would have enough sense to look a bit strangely at the person and
maybe ask if they had ever experienced a fire.
Fire is a word we use as an approximation or conceptual of a quality or
combination of qualities associated with a particular process that
people recognize through experience.
In the same exact non metaphorical way, mind is a word we use to
describe qualities associated with certain processes.
To ask whether something is external or internal, assumes a position can
be assigned and that there is some way to usefully or properly define
that position.
Where "is" a fire? Best you can do is a general description, though
often by the time you've given that description it's no longer valid...
especially the tighter you try to draw that boundary. You could
carefully control the experience so as to minimize that, but even then
fire has a way of getting out of hand. Mind is the same way, it has a
tendency to get out of hand and be places where you don't expect it-
more so than fire. And it is less controllable than fire. You could say
it has a will of its own.
aikeena
richard sprigg
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
>
> >
> > You are describing "The girders of the soul".
> > They are both real and illusory.
>
> Most illusions are.
>
> > >
> > > But then we forget that the boundaries are arbitrary, and then start to squabble over them as if they were real,
> >
> > Fighting over definitions of the indefinable.
> > sounds about par to me.
> >
> > Is mind external or internal?
>
> That would first require defining what is external or internal, by way
> of whatever axiomatic assumptions you used the question could be likely
> answered as a tautology.
Of course.
The best answer would be irremedially flawed by the view from inside a
carbon-based, oxygen and sustenance dependant lifeform, living under
certain conditions of temperature, pressure and gravity.
Other answers would be biased.
>
Mind is the same way, it has a
> tendency to get out of hand and be places where you don't expect it-
> more so than fire. And it is less controllable than fire. You could > say it has a will of its own.
I will agree that it has a mind of it's own.
To rephrase a poor question,
Do we see what we are, or are we just points of intersection?
Cogito ergo sum or Cogito ergo somewhere else?
aikeena
> > I rather doubt anyone who is 4 years down the path toward a PhD can be
> > accused of "hiding from effort", Winnie...
> >
> > Of course they can. Studying for a PhD is just an escape from having to deal
> > with the real world.
>
> Not in hard science, especially in Theoretical Physics.
>
Perhaps, Erwin means the 'working world' or the 'business world' and
that academia is an 'escape' from such strains.
I'm not sure if that's what he means, but from the tone of his comment I
think that's what he was trying to imply... that I'm something of a
ivory tower academic out of touch with real people's concerns or
something of the sort or worse.
If that is what he was trying to imply, nothing could be further from
the truth. I'm currently working 10-12 hour days at a blue collar job -
quality assurance inspector and receiving clerk at a soda pop factory.
I'm doing this and have been doing this sort of thing for many years as
I put myself through school. I'm also trying to help someone else close
to me who also works 50 hours a week and attends school full time.
Besides that I also keep up my paper writing, a regular exercise
regimen, fit in a little martial arts study, work and study on my long
term projects and the work and papers I owe my professors, work on
papers for publication, develop my sowrd making techniques, and find
time to post on a.m. and a.m.c.
Oh, I forgot and spend more time on magical study and development than
anything else except working, and sometimes I do it at work too. I
really don't short my sleep either, I usually get 6-8 every night,
except for insomnia which only happens when I get really excited over a
big idea and stay up late working on it. I've just gotten very efficient
at effectively spending my time, and rotating projects on a daily basis
so that they all get done and serious attention in one week cycles.
I've never thought anything special about it. Actually the person I'm
trying to help, she works harder than me and I'm a little bit of a goof
off compared to her.
I'd also like to fit in a once a week sparring session that I've been
invited to by some S.C.A. people.
I'm not doing this to brag, actually I see some areas of improvement
that I could use to better optimize my efforts.
I used to have a job in a physics department assisting some advanced
anti-matter research. But I got 100,000 volts from an accelerator
super-high voltage cable passed through me, treated badly by the
department, almost trapped inside a building during a radioactive
phosporous spill by the blast doors (I literally had to duck under them
as they came down or else be faced with decontamination by a N.R.C.
scrub team), exposed to radioactivity daily, and got no credit for my
really helpful work and innovations. This being the case, I quit and
went elsewhere.
I've also held jobs as a cutlry salesman working on commission,
telephone service face-face sales, computer lab monitor, and dishwasher.
I decided I hated selling people things they didn't need, so I quit
that. I dislike washing dishes, and I didn't get paid enough for the
work they were having me do on the side in the computer place-
everything from database entry (I type 40wpm, nothing spectacular but
sufficient), computer repair, software tutorials, minor programming, and
organizing repairs and upgrades with the techs. Blue collar actually was
an improvement, I did less work for more pay and more appreciation.
As for the business world, I've studied economics for five years, stock
investing and trading for three, have studied corporate and business
law, assisted someone literally class by class and paper by paper
through their MBA, manage my own money, and advise several people on
their finances with a degree of success if you keep score using money.
I'm also fairly experienced at dealing with corporate intrigue, and have
studied both sociology and politics at a theoretical and field level,
macro and micro.
I'll probably start my own business someday.
Of course, I feel fairly detached from money. After spending that one
year as a practical Hermit living in poverty- by choice- I decided to
come back because I decided that money was useful for helping others.
And so it has proven to be. But myself, I'm not particularly interested
in money per se, only for extending and pursuing my long term interests
and helping others. I've never felt deprived, even living on a tiny
income because I was brought up to be thrifty, control my expenses, and
budget my finances well. That and most of my joys in life cannot really
be enhanced or purchased through money. I actualy felt happier then,
than now. If one day I decide that I don't need as much money any more
to help others, I'll probably happily go back to living simply.
I'm not saying this to brag. Personally I know several people close to
me that work harder than this and sometimes I feel shame that I don't
work as hard as they do, which makes me strive for improvement. It just
happens to be true.
I've never tried to be a jack of all trades either, I just want to
achieve mastery of myself in all ways, and so I often just don't settle
for less than my best.
If you had asked me just a few years ago, I would have told you that I
thought all people that studied magic worked that hard.
>
> Well, I don't know if you want me to stop, Winnie. It seems to be
> fulfilling some sort of fantasy for you. Do you like to watch?
>
> Might as well charge a few sigils while you're at it. Shame to waste all
> that "hara"...
>
> (Aikeena: Well said, friend, but consider the source.)
>
> - J:.M:.555
Besides, what's so wrong with that sort of thing? While I happen to be
deeply in love with a biological woman, I can't say it hasn't crossed my
mind a few times what it would be like to tumble a good looking fellow
or very good male friend I was close to. I don't put any sort of
judgement on those things, or consider my thoughts anything other than
natural. I also have wondered what it would be like to tumble many
women. In either case, I try to be polite and gentemanly with them and
offer no offense verbally or in action with unwanted advances or
attentions. So no harm, no foul.
Someone once said: There's nothing good or bad except thinking makes it
so.
A pretty profound statement, with many subtle meanings besides the
obvious ones.
So I wasn't insulted at all by Erwin, whatever his intent. I was feeling
stern because I think it's very dishonorable to turn your hate or spite
or venom on others that aren't the source, that would be like cowardice
which is a sin in the eyes of either good or evil. But then juveniles
that are prone to being disrespectful, the use of sexual innuendos,
scatalogical remarks, sullenness, lashing out, and overall impudent,
foolish, and ultimately self-destructive behavior often need a dose of
calm sterness.
Unfortunately, it is all too true that by his actions Erwin seems to be
defining himself as such a juvenile. Such a pity, I did honestly think
he was of a higher caliber. Really. But then I often am mistaken, and
I'm willing to concede that possibility openly like I try to do with
most of my errors if they prove true.
aikeena
-ZZ
<nguy...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>I'll probably start my own business someday.
If you do, and you decide that you need an over-paid hanger-on, let me
know.
-ZZ
Grrr
<kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Bill Everett wrote:
>>
>> richard sprigg wrote in message <369D69...@sympatico.ca>...
>> >Bill Everett wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I guess I would have been better off asking why science and art should be
>> >> separate. Science isn't all math (although math does have a beauty of
>> it's
>> >> own). IMHO, Art, Magick and Science are all linked in a very fundamental
>> >> way.
>> >
>> >The cornerstone of science is replicability of phenomena by different
>> >individuals.
>> >The cornerstone of art is a unique quality dependant entirely upon the
>> >ability of the practitioner. Thus even the same practitioner may fail to
>> >replicate the same effect twice.
>>
>> So is art only art to the artist?
>
>In a sense, yes.
& to those who can replicate this same quality of inspirational
appreciation as the artist, upon observing their art.
>Art has a tendency to be elite, in that some will usually excel others,
>regardless of the effort expended. The variable of talent is introduced
>into the mixture.
>Science will be more egalitarian, in that an experiment properly
>performed will reliably produce certain phenomena.
So, if a painting by an "artist" could be broken down into its
components, of color, shade, & all these other variable qualities
which any inspirational painting may hold - to have all these
qualities broken down, and the capability of knowing the total and
precise psychological responses that 'that painting', as a whole,
would illicit within the mind, this replication of knowledge then
makes the art a science.
But, does this then make "art" an act of pure "elitism" (to excel in a
way that has given very few others the chance to even begin laying
down the foundations in such knowledge)
Is a child's painting then not "art" for THAT child?
I think "art" is more a notion of emotional attachment, and to excel,
is, for THAT artist, the finding of this emotional inspiration within
themselves.
& maybe it's this 'discovering something for the first time' (to
encounter a new frontier) of experience, or the discovering of this
emotional inspiration - for the first time, which then makes one
person's science, another's art.
So that; magick, science & art are linked, in the notion that:
magick is based on a universal set of rules (in which knowledge must
unfold into specific paths, in respect to the intent which is to be
proceeded) which, in essence, is 'the science of God's word' and that,
the more simplistic the scientific equation, the purer are the
emotions that are found within.
Where; science, will ALWAYS remain as "science", as long as there is
somebody who exists to recreate it's knowledge, with the intent of
recreating a desired effect. An effect which has been replicated, for
the purpose of producing this same inspirational quality of artistry,
for the eyes of another.
And that; art, will always be "art", as long as there exists,
somebody who is discovering the science for the first time.
An "art", which may then be replicated into a science, and then used
as an intentional pathway, for the purpose of "magick", in order to
find new 'hidden pathways' (art) which one has not yet laid down. So
that, science is used in understanding the attributes of these
pathways, which one is intent on laying down again, and "art" is used
within magick, to seek & define the "feeling of being", which may then
be used as a foundation for scientific intent, and shifted
accordingly, respective to, the understanding of one's intentional
desire that is be laid down, the pathway of "scientific knowledge",
which they continue to forge, and these discoveries of inspiration,
which then guide the desire into a pathway of respective familiarity
(within the confines of harmony).
Grrr. A bachelor of science, in the artistry of bullshitting
-ZZ
(Grrr) wrote:
>But, does this then make "art" an act of pure "elitism" (to excel in a
>way that has given very few others the chance to even begin laying
>down the foundations in such knowledge)
An act of art contains a message, and the artist who excels is the one
who most effectively conveys their message within the media and the
semiotic system they have chosen.
-ZZ