To Rae.....evil spirits
Tammy Stark Blandino
in good spirits. I do believe in spirits tho. Just like I don't believe
in Hell, but I don't believe in Heaven either.
You have been asked...repeatedly...to not do your "witnessing" here (that
being alt.pagan). I don't mind you being here, or even contributing,
but do greatly mind you pushing your religion here.
Unless you can come to understand that we are not interested in being
converted and cease in the attempt to "prove" your "truth" then I will
just have to put your name in my kill file.
Really Rae.....it's not polite
*******************************************************************************
Tammy Stark Blandino li...@jetson.uh.edu
*******************************************************************************
It's not what you got, but what you give.
It's not the life you choose, but the life you live.
-Tesla
Rae Stabosz
==================================
My last post didn't try to prove truth. It was just a kind of silly
(perhaps) rhapsodic (disharmonic maybe?) plea that objective truth
does exist, and is worth pursuing.
My daughter also does not believe in objective truth. I asked her and
a friend if it was true that the button holding up my pants existed,
or not. They said "if you believe it exists, then for you it's true"
but "if I don't believe it exists, then for me it's not true to say
that it exists."
But it continued to hold my pants on. I guess that's
what they mean by the power of belief :-).
Good and evil spirits either DO exist, or they DON'T. Your belief in
them will not affect their objective existence or non-existence at
all.
If you're looking for a way to hold your pants up, it might be nice
to know about buttons. But then again, if you've already thoroughly
investigated the situation & know for a fact that buttons cannot
possibly exist well... peace and blessings to you.
Rae
Michele L McNeal
>You have been asked...repeatedly...to not do your "witnessing" here (that
>being alt.pagan). I don't mind you being here, or even contributing,
>but do greatly mind you pushing your religion here.
Well, she said she would quit if enough people asked her... So...
Rae, will you quit!! Please!!
>Unless you can come to understand that we are not interested in being
>converted and cease in the attempt to "prove" your "truth" then I will
>just have to put your name in my kill file.
The problem is that whether or not they are welcome, likely to make converts
or even legaly allowed on private property, several X-tian
sects believe it's their duty to go around stuffing their religion down
people's throats... We have Brother Jed and Sister Cindy on campus all spring
and summer... They foul the air on every nice day with a continious rant of
ugly bigoted misogynist drivel. And they won't leave you alone, even when you
ask them nicely to go away! I think we have something of the same situation
here...
>
>Really Rae.....it's not polite
Indeed not.
Peace,
Michele
pro...@u.washington.edu
>Good and evil spirits either DO exist, or they DON'T. Your belief in
>them will not affect their objective existence or non-existence at
>all.
Actually, Rae, I'm going to have to call you on this one.
Because of one person's belief in the existence of spirits, and
another person's belief in the non-existence of spirits, then these
spirits both *do* and *do not* exist.
For the first person, they exist, and for the second person, they
do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
for each individual.
Just a thought. :)
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
Eclectic as all-git-out:)
*********************************************************************
I kissed a witch one night in the wood...
- Jethro Tull
*********************************************************************
Rae Stabosz
Hi Paul,
Thanks for calling me on this. But I am not sure I follow you. Is
this a variation on the idea that we create our own gods? Meaning,
we imagine certain things in our minds, and these imaginings can
move us to emotion, action or contemplation, but these imaginings
exist only for us, the imaginers? So that, for example, I can
imagine that an evil spirit is harassing me, or a good spirit
protecting me, and the emotions/thoughts/actions that flow from
that imagining will be true emotions/thoughts/actions?
This sounds like a variation on my daughter's idea that the button
holding up my pants existed for me if I thought it did, but did not
exist for her if she didn't believe in it. What I would argue is that
the button has an existence of its own. If I can see it and make use
of it, fine. If she can't see it then she can't make use of it, but it
is still there ready only to be sewn on a pair of pants. If she still
cannot see it, it still holds my pants up. She might then imagine all
kinds of reasons my pants are being held up but objectively, it's the
button she can't see that is doing the job.
Or perhaps I am not understanding you. What do you mean when you say
that a spirit exists for a person who believes in it, and doesn't
exist for a person who doesn't believe in it?
Rae
Jack Coyote
>people's throats... We have Brother Jed and Sister Cindy on campus all spring
>and summer...
Not any more. See alt.brother-jed for a report on the passing of Brother
Jed, apparently due to heatstroke. (On the solstice no less)
Sad, if true. I suppose.
Jack Coyote
--
That's it man, game over man, game over!
Pamela Marie Burnham
In a previous article, mmc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michele L McNeal) says:
>In article <14JUL199...@jane.uh.edu> li...@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Bland
>ino) writes:
>
>>You have been asked...repeatedly...to not do your "witnessing" here (that
>>being alt.pagan). I don't mind you being here, or even contributing,
>>but do greatly mind you pushing your religion here.
>
>Well, she said she would quit if enough people asked her... So...
>
>Rae, will you quit!! Please!!
>
Yes, pretty please???!!! It is getting REALLY tedious.
>ask them nicely to go away! I think we have something of the same situation
>here...
>
I don't mind hearing your opinion, but we are not intereseted in the ONE
AND ONLT TRUTH!!! Stay if you will but can the witnessing! Please!!!!
>>
>>Really Rae.....it's not polite
>
>Indeed not.
>
Please beleive that your truth is not neccessarily ours-- just to be polite!
>Peace,
>Michele
>
May your God bless you as mine bless me!
Pamela Marie
--
/\_/\ Pamela Marie (Moon'slark) (306) 955-6198 /\_/\
/ ! ! \ af...@freenet.carleton.ca / ! ! \
^ Cat lover, Wiccan, Bard, Diviner! < ^ >
\|/ (Puffkin) (Bastadora) \|/
pro...@u.washington.edu
Let me put it this way. Perhaps a little hypothetical situation will
clear up my meaning.
If a man were to be born, grow up, live, and die in the jungles of
Africa never having heard of J.Christ, then for that man, JC doesn't
exist. That man has never heard of, imagined, or come into contact
with anything related to Christianity, so if someone was to come up to
him and say "There was this guy who died, and came back to life.",
this man would probably say "Riiight. Sure.".
If this man went his whole life without anyone telling him about JC,
then for him, there would be no such person. For a Christian priest,
however, such a person does (or did) indeed exist.
To put it more personally, if I was to tell you about the
purple-frog worhipping cockroaches of planet Xtor, they now exist for
you, if only as a concept. If I had never mentioned them, however,
they would have only existed in my own mind, and not yours.
Hope this clears up my perspective a bit. :)
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
Jack Coyote
>that a spirit exists for a person who believes in it, and doesn't
>exist for a person who doesn't believe in it?
The Gospel according to Bomb Number Twenty:
And the prophet Doolittle came unto the BOMB, and spake:
Doolittle: "Hey, Bomb! Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?"
BOMB: "I am always ready to absorb new ideas."
Doolittle: "How do you know you exist?"
BOMB: "It is intuitively obvious."
Doolittle: "Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that
you exist?"
BOMB: "Hmmmm, I know! I think, therefore, I am!"
Doolittle: "That's good. Now, how do you know anything else exists?"
BOMB: "My sensory apparatus reveals it to me."
Doolittle: "Very good. Now for a tricky one. How do you know that the evidence
your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct?"
.
.
.
Doolittle: "What I'm driving at is this: Your only experience of the outside
world is a series of electrical impulses which stimulate your
computing center."
BOMB: "That would mean that I really don't know what the outside world is
like at all."
And neither do we. We get by by assuming that what we perceive is what is
really there, because otherwise there is no point in acting. This assumption
is not always valid (hallucinations seem real) and is sometimes incomplete
(try telling apart two isotopes of Nitrogen). The point is that people will
act as if their beliefs are true -- that's what belief is. Ultimately, we have
no experience but our own to draw on, so only our own beliefs ARE reality.
Jack Coyote
--
Q: How do you open the windows in a Russian Church?
A(rot 13): Pyvpx ba gur vpbaf.
Amanda Walker
> Good and evil spirits either DO exist, or they DON'T. Your belief in
> them will not affect their objective existence or non-existence at all.
Do "good and bad spirits" exist in the same way that "buttons" do, though?
I would argue that, at the very least, "spirits" exist on a different level
of reality than the one in which the cup of coffee on my desk exists, and
that these two levels of reality do indeed differ in their degree of
objectivity.
Peace,
Amanda Walker
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Or perhaps I am not understanding you. What do you mean when you say
>that a spirit exists for a person who believes in it, and doesn't
>exist for a person who doesn't believe in it?
Go rent the film _Eric the Viking_ by Terry Jones, formerly of Monty Python's
Flying Circus, for the best example of this. There's a Christian priest who
follows a group of Vikings around. They see dragons that sink their ship.
They go to Valhalla and see the gods (humourously portrayed as petulent
children). All through this is the priest, who doesn't see any of it at all.
For him, none of it exists. For Eric and company, it exists in full measure.
Otherwise, his comment is pretty self evident.
Bb,
Corun
--
==============================================================================
Corun MacAnndra | Q: What's the difference between Jurassic Park and
Dark Horde by birth | Microsoft? A: One's a high-tech theme park dominated
Moritu by choice | by dinosaurs, and the other's a Steven Spielberg film.
Rae Stabosz
In article ama...@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>
>Do "good and bad spirits" exist in the same way that "buttons" do, though?
>
>I would argue that, at the very least, "spirits" exist on a different level
>of reality than the one in which the cup of coffee on my desk exists, and
>that these two levels of reality do indeed differ in their degree of
>objectivity.
>Peace,
>Amanda Walker
>
Hi Amanda,
Buttons exist in physical reality, spirits exist in spiritual reality.
The two are different, and humans, being embodied souls or ensouled
bodies, possess faculties for knowing both buttons and spirits.
That's the short answer. I agree with you that there are different
levels of reality. I disagree that this affects the objectivity of
the truth value of the statements "buttons exist" and "good and evil
spirits exist." We happen to live during a time in which the faculties
of the spirit (will and intellect) are either not known, or scorned. Hence
we falter more than humans in various other times, who made more progress in
knowledge of spiritual reality because they knew of the spiritual faculties.
The long answer follows. It posits, but does not attempt to prove,
an Author of all being but Itself, Itself being a self-sufficient,
self-existing being. Those who don't believe that (or don't want
to accept it for the sake of the argument that follows) need go no further
with the discussion of how we know physical and spiritual reality.
I name the Author of all being God.
The Author of all being is necessarily the author of physical being.
This Author transcends physical reality and is a pure spirit. The
primary attributes of a pure spirit are will and intellect.
Spiritual beings cannot be perceived by the senses. This is because
the senses are physical faculties of the body whose purpose is to
perceive physical objects or physical being.
We are not only endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,
we are also endowed by our Creator with spiritual faculties, whose
purpose is to perceive spiritual reality. These two faculties are --
happy surprise! -- the intellect and the will. This is what's meant when
those of us who say it say that we are made "in the image and likeness
of God."
The purpose of the will is to love. The purpose of the intellect is to
know. I should digress for a moment to mention that the Three Persons of
God in classic Thomist theology are Father Who knows Himself so perfectly
that He eternally begets the Son, Who loves the Father so perfectly that
the bond between them is itself a perfect uncreated eternal Holy Spirit.
The will and the intellect are the big guns in this "family life of God
Himself". He endowed us with will and intellect so that we might love and
know also and as a race of human beings enter into this eternal family,
related to one another and to God through love and knowledge.
The intellect is the faculty given us by God in order to know spiritual
reality. Human reason and divine revelation are the two sources which the
intellect uses in order to so know.
So the long answer to the question of how do we know if buttons exist,
and how do we know if angelic creation (good and evil spirits) exists, is
that we use our senses to know the former and we use our intellect to know
the latter.
I haven't at all given any argument or proofs that angelic creation does
exist, please note. I'm just answering your question as to whether they
exist in the same way as buttons do. Their nature is not the same,
because they exist as spirit and not as physical beings. This means we
can't rely on the senses to know them but we are not left orphaned and
without faculties to know pure spirit, we have the intellect whose purpose
is precisely to know the spiritual.
Because we impoverished twentieth-centurions :-) aren't taught about the
intellect and because our education does not usually include training in
its use, spiritual knowledge comes harder than physical knowledge. In the
"bad old days", science, philosophy and theology held equal positions of
respect within the halls of higher education. On the University campus
where I work, the philosophy dept. has one old house that used to be
somebody's home while we've got at least ten new buildings, a bunch of older
buildings, and a couple of whole colleges devoted to the physical sciences.
It's no surprise that we can keep our pants up easier than we can discern the
spirits. :-) (Or, for that matter, that we can send folks to the
moon easier than we can construct a pluralistic society that
can insure peace and justice within its bounds :-(. Maybe someone should
start taking philosophy and theology seriously again.)
Salut in peace,
Rae
PS. Oh, even among Catholics you'll find plenty who don't believe in
angelic creation. To me, all arguments aside, angelic creation is
aesthetically pleasing because of how it rounds out & complements physical
creation. God is pure spirit. We are creatures of the dust and of the
heavens -- bodies to enjoy the good things of the created universe, wills
to love God and one another, intellects to know beyond the limitations of
the senses. Angels are creatures composed of will and intellect alone --
they are like pure darts of spirit springing from the Creator's brow.
They interact with us, and our lives are enriched if we know of them and
either accept their love and protection or fight their enmity and deceptions.
Rae Stabosz
====================
Ah, okay, I get it! I'd amend it to say that for a person who doesn't
believe in it, a spirit _might as well_ not exist. The dragons still
do exist and still do sink the ship. C.S. Lewis used the same concept
in one of his Narnia books, The Final Battle, where a group of dwarves
went through the end of the old world & came through into the new world
but sat in a tight corner grumbling "We won't be fooled, we won't be
fooled", and refused to see what was around them.
The sad point for the priest and the dwarves both and for anyone who
doesn't believe in what _does_ exist is that their joy is impaired
and their ability to act on reality is impaired also. Of course we
all suffer from this to one extent or another, which is why continual
growth in knowledge of and appreciation of reality is so wonderful.
Every new dragon or new world we see, if we are apprehending what
actually exists, is a new adventure. Those who won't be fooled and
those who can't see the dragons that are sinking their ships are in
some way the greatest fools.
Rae
Rae Stabosz
> Hi Rae.
>
> Let me put it this way. Perhaps a little hypothetical situation will
>clear up my meaning.
>
> If a man were to be born, grow up, live, and die in the jungles of
>Africa never having heard of J.Christ, then for that man, JC doesn't
>exist. That man has never heard of, imagined, or come into contact
>with anything related to Christianity, so if someone was to come up to
>him and say "There was this guy who died, and came back to life.",
>this man would probably say "Riiight. Sure.".
No. JC would still exist, but the person wouldn't know it.
Again, I would amend it to say that "for that man, JC's existence
has as little meaning for that man as if JC did not exist." JC is
still free in his independent existence to do whatever he wants
concerning that man, but the man himself remains unknowing.
>
> If this man went his whole life without anyone telling him about JC,
>then for him, there would be no such person. For a Christian priest,
>however, such a person does (or did) indeed exist.
Actually, the Christian priest in many ways has a tougher row to hoe
than the African guy. The priest has to struggle to know JC as he
really exists while walking a minefield of inaccurate, illusory, or
downright wrong beliefs about him. Orthodoxy is a wonderful help
for Catholics in this.
> To put it more personally, if I was to tell you about the
>purple-frog worhipping cockroaches of planet Xtor, they now exist for
>you, if only as a concept. If I had never mentioned them, however,
>they would have only existed in my own mind, and not yours.
Fictional beings are apprehended and enjoyed by the imagination.
I both read and write fiction, and the virtual existence of fictional
characters or mythical characters is one of the pleasures of both
reading and writing fiction.
But the cockroaches either are products of your imagination, or exist
independently. If they are the first, then they will act according
to the nature that you give them when you explain them to me. If
they are the second, they will act according to their own nature
independent of your accuracy in describing that nature to me in
your telling me of them.
> Hope this clears up my perspective a bit. :)
>
>
Yes, I think it does. Man is the measure of all things, existence
included, right? If a human doesn't think it, it doesn't exist. If
a human does think it, it does exist. I am of another school.
Salut in peace,
Rae>
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Ah, okay, I get it! I'd amend it to say that for a person who doesn't
>believe in it, a spirit _might as well_ not exist. The dragons still
>do exist and still do sink the ship. C.S. Lewis used the same concept
>in one of his Narnia books, The Final Battle, where a group of dwarves
>went through the end of the old world & came through into the new world
>but sat in a tight corner grumbling "We won't be fooled, we won't be
>fooled", and refused to see what was around them.
Good choice for a reference, but there is a great difference between
Lewis' dwarves and Jones' priest. The dwarves see the new world as
do those who live in it and claim they are being fooled. The priest
just plain doesn't see the dragon. For him it's not there at all. Something
sinks the ship, but it's not a dragon. It's not as if he sees a dragon
and refuses to believe it. This is a significant difference, and one
that points out what others here have said regarding the existence of
spirits.
>The sad point for the priest and the dwarves both and for anyone who
>doesn't believe in what _does_ exist is that their joy is impaired
>and their ability to act on reality is impaired also. Of course we
>all suffer from this to one extent or another, which is why continual
>growth in knowledge of and appreciation of reality is so wonderful.
In this case, dealing with something inherently unprovable, reality
is entirely subjegtive. You can no more "prove" that spirits exist
than anyone who doesn't believe in them can "prove" otherwise. This
is what is referred to as "faith." One has faith in a thing, and ergo
it exists for them. You believe in a being of omnipotence and call
it God. I believe in subatomic particles and cosmic forces and call
it science. If each of us sat down and tried to work a healing on
someone who was ill, you praying and me attmepting to control the
atomic structure of the ill persons body, we might both attain the
same reality, ie. healing. Reality is a matter of perception, and
like faith, is highly personal.
>Every new dragon or new world we see, if we are apprehending what
>actually exists, is a new adventure. Those who won't be fooled and
>those who can't see the dragons that are sinking their ships are in
>some way the greatest fools.
Only in the eyes of someone who thinks them a fool. Again, it's all
a matter of perspective. There are Xtians who think pagans are fools
for not believing in their version of God, and there are just as many
pagans who believe Xtians are fools for believing in what they consider
an outdated dogma. It all comes down to whatever brings you peace of
mind and does no harm to others. Sometimes, this is a very fine line.
Richard Schennberg
Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
Richard
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Schennberg E-mail: sche...@ms.uky.edu
- Ask Dr. Science -- He's smarter than you!
- He's not a real doctor -- I have a masters degree... in science!
Rae Stabosz
>In article <CA97z...@news.udel.edu> sta...@bach.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>>
>Good choice for a reference, but there is a great difference between
>Lewis' dwarves and Jones' priest. The dwarves see the new world as
>do those who live in it and claim they are being fooled. The priest
>just plain doesn't see the dragon. For him it's not there at all. Something
>sinks the ship, but it's not a dragon. It's not as if he sees a dragon
>and refuses to believe it. This is a significant difference, and one
>that points out what others here have said regarding the existence of
>spirits.
>
Okay. Point well taken. It's been awhile since I read the Narnia
book.
>>The sad point for the priest and the dwarves both and for anyone who
>>doesn't believe in what _does_ exist is that their joy is impaired
>>and their ability to act on reality is impaired also. Of course we
>>all suffer from this to one extent or another, which is why continual
>>growth in knowledge of and appreciation of reality is so wonderful.
>
>In this case, dealing with something inherently unprovable, reality
>is entirely subjegtive. You can no more "prove" that spirits exist
>than anyone who doesn't believe in them can "prove" otherwise. This
>is what is referred to as "faith." One has faith in a thing, and ergo
>it exists for them. You believe in a being of omnipotence and call
>it God. I believe in subatomic particles and cosmic forces and call
>it science. If each of us sat down and tried to work a healing on
>someone who was ill, you praying and me attmepting to control the
>atomic structure of the ill persons body, we might both attain the
>same reality, ie. healing. Reality is a matter of perception, and
>like faith, is highly personal.
>
As I have been arguing recently, RCC view of reality is not based
entirely or even predominantly on faith, but on reason and on the
ability of the intellect to know spiritual reality. This does not
mean that faith is not important -- indeed, faith is the starting
point and the sine qua non. Faith is a supernatural virtue infused
in the soul by God.
Reality is the "God's eye" view of things. Science teaches us
about physical reality. Theology and philosophy teach us about
spiritual reality. Our knowledge of both is incomplete. But
it is not personal. Skilled doctors of the body who have been
educated in physical healing rely on that education plus their
own experience when they heal. Yes, they must have a faith that
the physical model they use is valid, but that faith is not arbitrary,
it is communal. Doctors might argue about the validity of the
communal wisdom -- is laetrile a valid treatment for cancer or not?,
for example -- but it is their education and experience that allows
them to perform the human work of physical healing. The reality
of the physical ill remains regardless of the skill of the healer.
Likewise, a skilled doctor of the soul (Padre Pio or St. John de
Vianney come to mind) relies on education plus experience when
he or she heals. They must have faith that the spiritual model
they use is valid, but that faith is not arbitrary, but derived from
communal wisdom (and in this case, revealed truth since the object
of revealed truth is spiritual reality, not physical) --
is exorcism a valid treatment for possession or
not?, for example. Education and experience and also piety allows
them to perform the human work of spiritual healing.
Come to think of it, there's lots of crossover. The best doctors of
the body are those who are exemplary in piety according to their
own lights and religion, and the best doctors of the spirit can
heal in the physical realm also.
Now, I have to say that I believe both in a being of omnipotence
called God, and in subatomic particles called science. The "cosmic
forces" I am mute about because I don't have sufficient information
about them from you to assent or not to their existence or nature.
>>Every new dragon or new world we see, if we are apprehending what
>>actually exists, is a new adventure. Those who won't be fooled and
>>those who can't see the dragons that are sinking their ships are in
>>some way the greatest fools.
>
>Only in the eyes of someone who thinks them a fool. Again, it's all
>a matter of perspective. There are Xtians who think pagans are fools
>for not believing in their version of God, and there are just as many
>pagans who believe Xtians are fools for believing in what they consider
>an outdated dogma. It all comes down to whatever brings you peace of
>mind and does no harm to others. Sometimes, this is a very fine line.
>
>Bb,
>Corun
>--
I'd never make the jump from "those who won't be fooled and who can't
see the dragons are the greatest fools" to "pagan X is a fool" or
"Christian Y is a fool". My first statement takes me into the realm
of moral judgment, and I'd only make statements about moral truth,
never about any individual. You are right, it is a very fine line
we are discussing here.
Thanks for your thoughts and for discussing mine.
Salut, in peace,
Rae
Rae Stabosz
>Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
>
Yes. Guardians angels can protect us, strengthen our will, etc.
Malevolent angels can attack our will or our intellect, to weaken
the first & deceive the second. I don't know enough about them to
know how either can affect our bodies.
>Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
I don't know anything about magick. [You will not doubt say "well
that's surely apparent", but from reading here I glean that magick
has to do with influencing the imagination & the emotions & with
stirring up the will to 1) seek wisdom and 2) perform good
acts. Pardon me if this is a
wrong reading of it.]
>
>Richard
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard P. Schennberg E-mail: sche...@ms.uky.edu
>- Ask Dr. Science -- He's smarter than you!
>- He's not a real doctor -- I have a masters degree... in science!
Salut,
Rae
Jaguar
Rae:
My view on 'spirits' is that they exist. Just like people exist.
Just like people they can be good or bad, depending on your
view/perception of them. Tere are some of them,
thus like there are some people, that you would not want to meet
in an alley alone at night.
Jaguar
Don't you just hate it when the cat watches that invisible thingie
moving around the room?
Karen L Hsu
>In article <CA9GB...@ms.uky.edu> sche...@ms.uky.edu (Richard Schennberg) writes:
>>Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
>
>I don't know anything about magick. [You will not doubt say "well
>that's surely apparent", but from reading here I glean that magick
>has to do with influencing the imagination & the emotions & with
>stirring up the will to 1) seek wisdom and 2) perform good
>acts. Pardon me if this is a
>wrong reading of it.]
Yes, magick does work on people who don't believe. I confess that I
used the "evil eye" to cause harm to someone for revenge purposes. The story
behind it is sad and dreary, so I won't burden you with details, but I
succeeded in giving my victim an eye infection and willing my victim to be
subjected to a 6-week detention (this was in high school.)
Karen Hsu
drag...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
"In love does all wisdom begin."
Corun MacAnndra
>
>As I have been arguing recently, RCC view of reality is not based
>entirely or even predominantly on faith, but on reason and on the
>ability of the intellect to know spiritual reality. This does not
>mean that faith is not important -- indeed, faith is the starting
>point and the sine qua non. Faith is a supernatural virtue infused
>in the soul by God.
If I understand what you mean in your last sentence here, then I have
to argue that if faith is infused into the soul by God, then we should
all have this faith, and the question of the existence of God or any
attendent spirits would never arise. We would simply have the faith
already there and believe in them. But since we don't all believe in
this God (or in any in some cases) or any spirits, then we don't all
have this faith. Faith is subjective and personal. One has it, or not,
and faith leads to belief.
You said a lot of things here that I've deleted to save bandwidth, and
also because I agree with many of them, if only from an academic point
of view. I don't want to get into a debate about what you believe vs.
what I believe, since the original question was (correct me if I'm
wrong here) on whether belief in something means it exists, or if disbelief
means it doesn't. I won't repeat what Bekki Lyn already stated, because
it would be redundant and she said it so much more eloquently than I
could. You do make some good and valid points, and I can agree with them
because I can apply them as well to my belief system as you can to yours.
But I will address the paragraph below.
>Now, I have to say that I believe both in a being of omnipotence
>called God, and in subatomic particles called science. The "cosmic
>forces" I am mute about because I don't have sufficient information
>about them from you to assent or not to their existence or nature.
There are people today, who even after watching the moon landings, still
do not believe that we went there. They firmly believe that it was all
a hoax done up in the Disney studios. I could show you a photgraph taken
in an electron microscope of atoms colliding on the head of a pin, and
you could conceivably see angels dancing there. You wouldn't believe they
were atoms, and I wouldn't believe they were angels. And for each of us,
having the proof before our eyes wouldn't be worth a tinkers dam. It
would purely be a function of belief that would make the atoms or angels
exist for each of us.
(For all the scientists out there, this was a hypothetical example) ;-)
Bb,
Corun (living on the edge of Occam's razor)
Doug O'Neal
> Yes, magick does work on people who don't believe. I confess that I
> used the "evil eye" to cause harm to someone for revenge purposes. The story
> behind it is sad and dreary, so I won't burden you with details, but I
> succeeded in giving my victim an eye infection and willing my victim to be
> subjected to a 6-week detention (this was in high school.)
> Karen Hsu
> drag...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
> "In love does all wisdom begin."
Are you sure that the same fistfight that may have resulted in the
detention didn't give him the eye infection too?
Doug
pro...@u.washington.edu
reminded me:
Probably the ultimate argument about the belief/non-belief system
that *I've* ever seen (for readability, anyhow), would be Stephen R.
Donaldson's _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever_.
Just a quick aside. :)
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
pro...@u.washington.edu
>No. JC would still exist, but the person wouldn't know it.
>Again, I would amend it to say that "for that man, JC's existence
>has as little meaning for that man as if JC did not exist." JC is
>still free in his independent existence to do whatever he wants
>concerning that man, but the man himself remains unknowing.
See the next paragraph about "for that man".
>> If this man went his whole life without anyone telling him about JC,
>>then for him, there would be no such person. For a Christian priest,
>>however, such a person does (or did) indeed exist.
>> To put it more personally, if I was to tell you about the
>>purple-frog worshipping cockroaches of planet Xtor, they now exist for
>>you, if only as a concept. If I had never mentioned them, however,
>>they would have only existed in my own mind, and not yours.
>But the cockroaches either are products of your imagination, or exist
>independently. If they are the first, then they will act according
>to the nature that you give them when you explain them to me. If
>they are the second, they will act according to their own nature
>independent of your accuracy in describing that nature to me in
>your telling me of them.
However, in *either* case, they would not have existed *for you* if I
hadn't put them into your conciousness.
>> Hope this clears up my perspective a bit. :)
>>
>Yes, I think it does. Man is the measure of all things, existence
>included, right? If a human doesn't think it, it doesn't exist. If
>a human does think it, it does exist. I am of another school.
Actually, If a human doesn't think it, it doesn't exist *for them*.
If they do think it, it does exist in some form *for them*.
You will notice that I haven't brought up the subject of knowledge,
but un-belief. That's because that's where it gets thorny. :)
>Salut in peace,
>
>Rae>
May your life be less confusing than most of these posts;)
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
Rae Stabosz
intellect, will, faith, reason that I've been writing. I see I had a
murky idea of the relationship of faith to reason. I want to correct
this, so I'll just give the basics of the Thomistic view that I've
been confusedly (as someone notes) trying to put forth.
Terminology. Faith and Reason are both tools of the one spiritual faculty
of Intellect. The object of the Intellect is Truth. The Intellect either
a) arrives at Truth for itself: this is Reason -- the verb is "to
know"; or
b) takes the Truth on the word of another: This is Faith -- the
verb is "to believe". Reason is used here in deciding on the informant's
competence and honesty.
Both Faith and Reason may legitimately give rise to certainty: the
difference between them is not in the degree of certainty but in the means
by which it is attained.
Faith does not mean intellectual suicide. Anything which gives Truth to
Intellect treats Intellect aright.
a) Intellect has the two implements, Faith and Reason.
b) Some truths it can only attain by Faith.
c) To refuse truth attained by Faith, because it has not been
attained by Reason, is to prefer the means to the end.
I correct myself, in not explaining Faith to be an implement of
the Intellect.
Rae
Mirabelle Severn & Thames
>>Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
>Yes. Guardians angels can protect us, strengthen our will, etc.
>Malevolent angels can attack our will or our intellect, to weaken
>the first & deceive the second.
Can my gods shield me from any influence by your god?
Can my image of your god (derived, BTW, from my pious RC upbringing --
they taught me very different things from what they're teaching you,
and it was only 10-25 years ago) have any effect on the form your
god takes in our posited "objective reality?"
Naomi
Richard Darsie
>
> Actually, the Christian priest in many ways has a tougher row to hoe
> than the African guy. The priest has to struggle to know JC as he
> really exists while walking a minefield of inaccurate, illusory, or
> downright wrong beliefs about him. Orthodoxy is a wonderful help
You mean dogma, defined as
1) A system of doctrines *proclaimed* true by a religious sect.
2) A principle, belief, or statement of idea or opinion, esp. one
authoritatively *considered* to be absolute truth.
3) A system of principles or *beliefs*.
(American Heritage Dictionary, all emphases mine)
I find your above paragraph to be symptomatic of much of what is
disturbing to me (and presumably others here) about Christianity.
(Much, but not all - there's *lots* more :)
First, the implicit statement that there is *one true objective
reality*. Second, the implication that priests are necessary to
connect with this objective reality (I know, you don't state it
directly, but this is my understanding of Catholic *orthodoxy*.)
Third, the not-so-subtly stated implication that any views (about JC)
which differ from orthodoxy are wrong, dangerous (read "heretical")
and hence, evil.
There has been lots of discussion about the appropriateness of
your presence here. I believe it's a free country (well, in theory
anyway) and I think most people here are not unwilling to hear
diverse viewpoints. But you're pushing some of the wrong buttons.
I'd wager that almost every pagan on this board has had experience
with Christians who say they want "dialogue", only to find out that
what they mean by "dialogue" is an opportunity to slam, discredit
or if possible destroy our beliefs and "show us the error of our
ways so we'll let Jesus into our lives." Thanks, but no thanks.
I'm not out-and-out accusing you of having a hidden agenda. I just
wanted to point out the reasons why some us might suspect one.
Others have said this, so I will too: Be a respectful visitor to
our space and you'll be welcome. In other words, don't expect us
to be receptive to your "Good News".
Richard Darsie (Tuneweaver)
>
> Rae>
>
Grendel Grettisson
>Uurrkk -- I went back & checked some of my sources for the posts on
>intellect, will, faith, reason that I've been writing. I see I had a
>murky idea of the relationship of faith to reason. I want to correct
>this, so I'll just give the basics of the Thomistic view that I've
>been confusedly (as someone notes) trying to put forth.
Why give the basics? Maybe you missed the point so I will repeat it: THIS
IS ALT.PAGAN, NOT ALT.CHRISTIAN. WE READ MESSAGES HERE AND POST TO DISCUSS
PAGANISM IN ALL OF ITS FORMS, NOT CHRISTIANITY.
Frankly, I don't CARE about Christianity, don't want to hear about it,
don't want to read about it. I suspect it is the same for most people
here. Take it to a Christian newsgroup and leave us alone!@
Grendel Grettisson
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
| Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson | "You are, each one, a priest, |
| Anthropology Undergrad | Just for yourself." |
| University of Washington | |
| Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List | -Noble Drew Ali- |
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Richard Schennberg
Eric Marsh
> b) takes the Truth on the word of another: This is Faith -- the
> verb is "to believe". Reason is used here in deciding on the informant's
> competence and honesty.
> Faith does not mean intellectual suicide. Anything which gives Truth to
> Intellect treats Intellect aright.
> a) Intellect has the two implements, Faith and Reason.
> b) Some truths it can only attain by Faith.
> c) To refuse truth attained by Faith, because it has not been
> attained by Reason, is to prefer the means to the end.
Fine. Then I reject Christianity because I do not trust the informant's
competence and honesty.
> Rae
eric
Richard Schennberg
Get a death!
Have you had any spirits lately?
Perhaps some angry spirits?
Are they evil?
Powerful?
Or weak but arrogant?
War be with you,
Richard
Pamela Marie Burnham
In a previous article, sche...@ms.uky.edu (Richard Schennberg) says:
>Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
>
>Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
>
>Richard
I was taught that Magick CAN influence people who don't believe in
it...only they do not see it as such.
Richard M. Romanowski
>Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
Why, yes...I was once given a spiked glass of punch that
I believed to be alcohol-free...the spirits worked on me after
three glasses...
But seriously folks, not-believing-in-spirits is a mighty
magical tool. Cf. Crowley's Moonchild, and the magician of Mars
(Brother Onofrio, wasn't it?) who can cast all of magick over his
shoulder with a horse-laugh -- and reckon that action as a branch
of magick.
If someone sent an evil spirit at me, I would refuse to
believe in evil -- because so doing invokes a very potent force
of good. But don't try it at home -- the actors in this
demonstration are trained psychotics.
>Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
Well, we could be Crowleyan and claim that Magick is
anything which Causes Anything to Happen. So if you don't
believe in guns and someone shoots you, most people would
apply bandages. Perhaps if you're a way-studly fakir you
could telekinetically deflect the bullet by force of belief...
but that would be a case of "reality" not working on someone
who "believed" in "magick."
But it seems that the real point of your question is:
Will the "evil eye," or "love spells," or "vampirism," or
similar forms of domination, work on people who don't believe
in them?
Unfortunately there's no way of testing this without
harming people -- it's rather like testing a gun by shooting
people. One might try putting the evil eye on a rat or a flower
and seeing if it died, but it is much harder to hate a dumb
beast or plant than it is to hate a human being.
"Belief" must be tailored according to target. Most
down-to-earth folk would laugh hard if one let it be known
dolls in their image were being stuck with pins. But if one
maintained occult secrecy, and sent the image telepathically,
they might well scream.
Telepathy, of course, is not an issue for modern science,
as its existence was proven far too well in the early twentieth
century. (Check out Upton Sinclair's _Mental_Radio_ -- with
a forward by Albert Einstein -- and weep at the sheer pig-headedness
of materialistic "scientists.")
If you are interested in paranormal phenomena which don't
fail embarrassingly when you trot them out in front of your
parlor guests, look into psi research. It still goes on, and
one day it might even be available on the undergraduate level.
Does anybody have the name of that guy who gets telekinesis to
work on a statistically significant level, affecting an electrical
switch in a machine?
>Richard
LVX
rmr
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard P. Schennberg E-mail: sche...@ms.uky.edu
>- Ask Dr. Science -- He's smarter than you!
'Great is Science of the Modern World!'
(they cry, in the same manner that
earlier heathens cried, 'Great is
Diana of Ephesos!')
Bruce J Bell
>In article ama...@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>>
>>Do "good and bad spirits" exist in the same way that "buttons" do, though?
>>
>>I would argue that, at the very least, "spirits" exist on a different level
>>of reality than the one in which the cup of coffee on my desk exists, and
>>that these two levels of reality do indeed differ in their degree of
>>objectivity.
>>Peace,
>>Amanda Walker
>>
>====================
>Hi Amanda,
>Buttons exist in physical reality, spirits exist in spiritual reality.
>The two are different, and humans, being embodied souls or ensouled
>bodies, possess faculties for knowing both buttons and spirits.
>That's the short answer. I agree with you that there are different
>levels of reality. I disagree that this affects the objectivity of
>the truth value of the statements "buttons exist" and "good and evil
>spirits exist." We happen to live during a time in which the faculties
>of the spirit (will and intellect) are either not known, or scorned. Hence
>we falter more than humans in various other times, who made more progress in
>knowledge of spiritual reality because they knew of the spiritual faculties.
A short (well, actually it will probably get quite long) note, here,
on the discussion of objective and subjective truths:
Pagans seem to vary a great deal in their beliefs in this area. For
many of them, it isn't an important question. To add to the confusion,
terms relating to objective and subjective truth are often used in
different ways, in explanation of beliefs they don't really relate to,
rather than in support or defense of actual ojectivity and subjectivity
themselves.
Every one of us uses an assumption of objective truth in their daily
lives. We assume that things will not vanish when we are away
from them; that the ground will not suddenly vanish from under our
feet without some reason. It is also not practical to assume that
just because you don't believe something that is isn't so. If you
don't check your beliefs with reality, you could get run over by a
car you didn't look for, and so didn't believe was there...
In that respect, we all believe in objective reality. But words
are slippery things, and sometimes mean different things each
time they're used. When someone says, "well, it's true for _me_!",
they might be making a statement about relevance or practicality,
rather than the serious philosophical implication that objective
reality is fragmented into billions of different versions, one for
each intelligent being. It's more likely to mean, "I believe this,
and it's works for me". Or possibly something else.
Of course, not everyone subscribes to this. I knew one person who
genuinely believed that there was no objective reality; that each
person had their own reality, that they could manipulate as they
wished. This raises interesting questions on how people could
affect each other, but this isn't the place to resolve this...
Anyway, the last thing I want to say about this is: given that
there is some objective reality that everyone has to deal with,
nobody can reasonably claim perfect knowledge of it. Our senses
perceive only part of the world, and our minds cannot encompass
all knowledge in the world. We can only do the best we can with
what we have.
(These are my own ideas on this. If other people have other
ideas, or want to say what they think about it, I would be
interested in hearing them.)
>The long answer follows. It posits, but does not attempt to prove,
>an Author of all being but Itself, Itself being a self-sufficient,
>self-existing being. Those who don't believe that (or don't want
>to accept it for the sake of the argument that follows) need go no further
>with the discussion of how we know physical and spiritual reality.
>I name the Author of all being God.
Well, many people do not believe your axiom. The existence of God
*is* a question of objective fact, as are such questions as what
attributes such a thing would have. This axiom also doesn't
imply that such a God has attributes such as intelligence, will, or
immortality. The definition of the Goddess I have heard most
often is that the Goddess is everything that is, which, incidentally,
avoids unanswerable questions about origins...
[much deleted]
Here you are slipping in additional axioms by the bucketful.
I am honestly confused at the purpose of your comments: are
they supposed to be an explanation of _why_ you believe things,
or a catalog of _what_ you believe?
(incidentally, intellect and will are generally used to mean
different things from what you are using them to mean. Will
is an important concept in paganism and in magick, but their
definition of will seems a lot less strained than yours)
>I haven't at all given any argument or proofs that angelic creation does
>exist, please note. I'm just answering your question as to whether they
>exist in the same way as buttons do. Their nature is not the same,
>because they exist as spirit and not as physical beings. This means we
>can't rely on the senses to know them but we are not left orphaned and
>without faculties to know pure spirit, we have the intellect whose purpose
>is precisely to know the spiritual.
Oh... Well, I don't think anybody requested an explanation of
Thomism. I assume they expected a coherent explanation of your
ideas of spirits, not a catalog of religious belief. But, perhaps
it was all necessary to explain about spirits... oh well.
>Because we impoverished twentieth-centurions :-) aren't taught about the
>intellect and because our education does not usually include training in
>its use, spiritual knowledge comes harder than physical knowledge. In the
>"bad old days", science, philosophy and theology held equal positions of
>respect within the halls of higher education. On the University campus
>where I work, the philosophy dept. has one old house that used to be
>somebody's home while we've got at least ten new buildings, a bunch of older
>buildings, and a couple of whole colleges devoted to the physical sciences.
IMHO, modern education does provide training in the use of
the intellect. Just because it doesn't include medieval philosophy
doesn't mean it's deficient :-) More seriously, a much better
intellectual training than traditional philosophy (in IMnsHO) would
have courses in debate, skeptical inquiry, and formal mathematics.
(This is not my own training, incedentally. I have not had any
training in skeptical inquiry or debate, though I have had some in
traditional philosophy.)
Bruce
Richard Schennberg
It might help you to know that even if you believe in
"absolute truth," it is more polite to say "I believe ... "
than "the truth is ... " The problem with the second statement
is that it implies that the other person is absolutely wrong,
hence the ensuing counterproductive argument. Call me a hippocrite,
I have certainly started more than my fair share. When someone
tells me what to do, it is certainly within my capabilities to
push their "red" button until they are tired of the fight. But if
you wish to discuss things with people, and you must press buttons,
try for the "green" and "yellow" ones whenever possible.
Richard
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Schennberg E-mail: sche...@ms.uky.edu
- Ask Dr. Science -- He's smarter than you!
Jack Coyote
>Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
Yes.
>Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
Yes.
--
Does this bug you? I'm not touching you.
Joshua Geller
(Jack Coyote) writes:
> In alt.pagan, sche...@ms.uky.edu (Richard Schennberg) writes:
> >Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
> Yes.
this is so terse it is almost meaningless. a person
asking this question must define, and a person answering
such a question must ask the querent's definition of
'spirit', 'influence' and 'believe'. especially 'believe'.
josh
Lance A. Brown
> Because of one person's belief in the existence of spirits, and
> another person's belief in the non-existence of spirits, then these
> spirits both *do* and *do not* exist.
>
> For the first person, they exist, and for the second person, they
> do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
> for each individual.
Yipppeeee! Quantum-mechanical spirits!
Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
Lance
--
The Full Circle
Domain: la...@circle.raleigh.nc.us (Lance A. Brown) [ preferred ]
Bangs: ...!wolves!circle!lance
PGP Public key block available upon request
Lance A. Brown
> people's throats... We have Brother Jed and Sister Cindy on campus all spring
> and summer... They foul the air on every nice day with a continious rant of
> ugly bigoted misogynist drivel. And they won't leave you alone, even when yo
> u
> ask them nicely to go away! I think we have something of the same situation
> here...
I think you may be painting Rae with too broad a brush. Her
witnessing here has been remarkably polite considering some of what we
have had to endure in the past. I don't think I want Rae to go away,
but to stay and learn more about us.
Zach K
>Yipppeeee! Quantum-mechanical spirits!
SO the probability that they exist is given by the wave equation?
COOL!
--Zach Zke...@cs.brandeis.edu
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. The sea's
asleep, and the rivers dream. People made of smoke and cities made of sound.
Somewhere there's danger. Somewhere there's injustice.
Somewhere else the tea's getting cold. Come on Ace, we've got work to do."
-The Doctor "Survival"
pro...@u.washington.edu
>la...@circle.raleigh.nc.us (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>
>>Yipppeeee! Quantum-mechanical spirits!
>SO the probability that they exist is given by the wave equation?
>COOL!
Hi guys.
All right, confession time. If you recall, I'm the one who made that
argument in the first place. However...um...could you guys put those
last two comments in layman's terms please??
I'm not stupid, just ignorant. :)
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
***********************************************************************
I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.
- Henley
***********************************************************************
groovy feminazi
>witnessing here has been remarkably polite considering some of what we
>have had to endure in the past. I don't think I want Rae to go away,
>but to stay and learn more about us.
Of course, you could be assuming that she wants to. Learn more about us,
that is...
Laura
groovy feminazi
> Oh, as long as someone mentioned a book on this subject, that
>reminded me:
> Probably the ultimate argument about the belief/non-belief system
>that *I've* ever seen (for readability, anyhow), would be Stephen R.
>Donaldson's _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever_.
> Just a quick aside. :)
>
ARrrrrrrrrrrrhhh!
Sorry. That was perhaps the most depressing thing I read. My best friend hid
the second book from me for who knows how long because I was indeed an
evil person when I even read it.
Still plowing through "The One Tree...."
Laura
mark
>Rae Stabosz writes:
>
>>Good and evil spirits either DO exist, or they DON'T. Your belief in
>>them will not affect their objective existence or non-existence at
>>all.
>
> Actually, Rae, I'm going to have to call you on this one.
>
> Because of one person's belief in the existence of spirits, and
>another person's belief in the non-existence of spirits, then these
>spirits both *do* and *do not* exist.
>
> For the first person, they exist, and for the second person, they
>do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
>for each individual.
>
>
Do you mean, spirits are Heisenberg's cats?
(B-{)}
mark
"Heisenberg may have slept here, but I haven't looked to see"
pro...@u.washington.edu
>> Probably the ultimate argument about the belief/non-belief system
>>that *I've* ever seen (for readability, anyhow), would be Stephen R.
>>Donaldson's _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever_.
>ARrrrrrrrrrrrhhh!
>Sorry. That was perhaps the most depressing thing I read. My best friend hid
>the second book from me for who knows how long because I was indeed an
>evil person when I even read it.
Oh, damn right, it's one of the most depressing series of books that
I've ever read. My point was that virtually the whole series was an
argument about belief vs. non-belief. Even if it *was* depressing,
though, it was quite well written. I enjoyed parts of it immensely,
although I never did get all the way through the sixth book. :) I've
tried the series twice too. :)
>Laura
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
pro...@u.washington.edu
>> For the first person, they exist, and for the second person, they
>>do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
>>for each individual.
>Do you mean, spirits are Heisenberg's cats?
Perhaps more like the Bugblatter Beast of Trall. :)
> mark
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
Ian Paul Foot
Heisenberg's cats? What are they? I thought that the cats that
(hypothetically) do and don't exist simultaneously were Schrodinger's
(sp?) cats. Mind you, you can never tell with cats...
---
Ian --- :^)
Ian....@UK.Sun.COM
____________________________________________________________
May the long-time Sun shine upon you, all love surround you
and the pure light within you, guide your way on.
Samantha Atkins
> Rae Stabosz writes:
>
> >Good and evil spirits either DO exist, or they DON'T. Your belief in
> >them will not affect their objective existence or non-existence at
> >all.
>
> Actually, Rae, I'm going to have to call you on this one.
>
> Because of one person's belief in the existence of spirits, and
> another person's belief in the non-existence of spirits, then these
> spirits both *do* and *do not* exist.
>
> do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
> for each individual.
>
synonymous.
Corun MacAnndra
>>In article <1993Jul19.1...@radian.uucp> markbr%rad...@natinst.com (mark) writes:
>>
>>>> For the first person, they exist, and for the second person, they
>>>>do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
>>>>for each individual.
>>
>>>Do you mean, spirits are Heisenberg's cats?
>>
>>
>
>Heisenberg's cats? What are they? I thought that the cats that
>(hypothetically) do and don't exist simultaneously were Schrodinger's
>(sp?) cats. Mind you, you can never tell with cats...
It's uncertain whether Heisenberg had any cats at all. But I have seen
Fermat's last napkin. ;-)
Bb,
Corun
"Of course I'm certain." -- Heisenberg
--
==============================================================================
Corun MacAnndra | Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I speak with an
Dark Horde by birth | English accent. -- Cary Elwes
Moritu by choice | Robin Hood: Men in Tights
pro...@u.washington.edu
>>
>>>> For the first person, they exist, and for the second person, they
>>>>do not. Perhaps it would be better to say that they DO or DON'T exist
>>>>for each individual.
>>
>>>Do you mean, spirits are Heisenberg's cats?
>>
>
>(hypothetically) do and don't exist simultaneously were Schrodinger's
>(sp?) cats. Mind you, you can never tell with cats...
To be perfectly honest, I thought that he might mean Schrodinger's
cats too. I didn't, however, know enough about the subject to call him
on it. So I ignored it completely and put forth my own smart-ass
comment. :)
Thanks for asking. Now maybe we ignorant savages can learn
something. ;)
>Ian --- :^)
- Paul (pro...@u.washington.edu)
bill nelson
: In article <CA9GB...@ms.uky.edu> sche...@ms.uky.edu (Richard Schennberg) writes:
: >Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
:
: Malevolent angels can attack our will or our intellect, to weaken
: know how either can affect our bodies.
This is a matter of faith alone. There is no proof that such entities
exist - much less that they can interact with the physical world.
: >Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
:
: I don't know anything about magick. [You will not doubt say "well
: that's surely apparent", but from reading here I glean that magick
: has to do with influencing the imagination & the emotions & with
: stirring up the will to 1) seek wisdom and 2) perform good
: acts. Pardon me if this is a
: wrong reading of it.]
Yes, magick is those things, for some people. So, you do know a bit
about magic - although you are unaware of just how much. For example,
prayer is magic. A religious service/celebration is magic. A naming
(cristening) is a magical act. Magick is these things, and much more.
Bill
bill nelson
:
: Yes, magick does work on people who don't believe. I confess that I
: used the "evil eye" to cause harm to someone for revenge purposes. The story
: behind it is sad and dreary, so I won't burden you with details, but I
: succeeded in giving my victim an eye infection and willing my victim to be
: subjected to a 6-week detention (this was in high school.)
Ah, but what do you have to show that you were the actual cause of either?
I submit that all you have is co-incidence.
Bill
bill nelson
: In alt.pagan, sche...@ms.uky.edu (Richard Schennberg) writes:
:
: >Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
:
: Yes.
:
: >Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
:
: Yes.
Ah, you have posted some dogmatic beliefs. Now, can you provide
any proof that your beliefs are true? In other words, can you
show a causal relationship between belief/influence?
If not, all you can honestly say is that you "believe that such
and such can occur".
Bill
bill nelson
:
: > Unfortunately there's no way of testing this without
: >harming people -- it's rather like testing a gun by shooting
: >people. One might try putting the evil eye on a rat or a flower
: >and seeing if it died, but it is much harder to hate a dumb
: >beast or plant than it is to hate a human being.
: No, there's not, but I've done it. It works. And it does harm people,
: in my case, me.
Ah, but you knew. So, you do not fit the requirement for the unknowing
subject. Also, how do you know that it was not just your mind doing it
to you, rather than any magickal act?
Bill
Richard M. Romanowski
>sta...@bach.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>: In article <CA9GB...@ms.uky.edu> sche...@ms.uky.edu (Richard Schennberg) writes:
>: >Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
>:
>: Yes. Guardians angels can protect us, strengthen our will, etc.
>: Malevolent angels can attack our will or our intellect, to weaken
>: the first & deceive the second. I don't know enough about them to
>: know how either can affect our bodies.
>This is a matter of faith alone. There is no proof that such entities
>exist - much less that they can interact with the physical world.
What would constitute proof? God's Bleeding Eyes! Even if I
were to prove that the square root of two is irrational, it would only
be valid within my chosen array of axioms.
What proof do you want? To whom should it be given?
Proof! Faugh!
"yeah, if you were really cool you'd take the day off to
show me more miracles."
Here, skeptics. Here is proof that magick does not exist.
Playing Paganini on a violin is a magical act. I take a violin.
I attempt to play Paganini. Revolting noise results. Therefore
Paganini is a hoax, because the burden of "proof" is on those who
believe that this music was once produced with a violin. While
this does not disprove the existence of magick, it certainly
reveals that all these folks who have been talking about it are
crazy, or at most unscrupulous hucksters...
It is only a matter of *faith* that anyone else posts
to the Net, except myself and the people I have seen posting,
and whose posts I have checked. But I have faith that the rest
of you are real, live incarnate beings with the ability to
interact with the physical plane.
>: >Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
>:
>: I don't know anything about magick. [You will not doubt say "well
>: that's surely apparent", but from reading here I glean that magick
>: has to do with influencing the imagination & the emotions & with
>: stirring up the will to 1) seek wisdom and 2) perform good
>: acts. Pardon me if this is a
>: wrong reading of it.]
>Yes, magick is those things, for some people. So, you do know a bit
>about magic - although you are unaware of just how much. For example,
>prayer is magic. A religious service/celebration is magic. A naming
>(cristening) is a magical act. Magick is these things, and much more.
>Bill
Magick is having a FAQ frequently posted so we can all
use the same definitions!
How many people find it frighteningly tedious to keep
running across threads that whine and hedge and hint about the
definition of "magic(k)"? We don't seem to make new insights
when we cover this ground, and we keep covering it over and
over.
Perhaps the group ought to have been called alt.causality,
if we go by "Magick is the Art and Science of Causing Change
in Conformity With Will."
Or when we say magick, are we talking about High Ceremonial
Magick?
Perhaps some kind Boddhisatva will assemble a list of all
the senses in which we can use the term "magic."
1. The pretended art of producing effects or controlling events
by charms, spells, and rituals supposed to govern certain natural
or supernatural forces; sorcery, witchcraft.
2. Any mysterious, seemingly inexplicable, or extraordinary
power or influence; ...
These definitions stolen from The Big Blue Dictionary
That Was Until Recently Sitting In My Parents' Family Room. I think
it's under a different title in the Library of Congress, though.
When all else fails, go back to the definitions...
LVX
rmr
Richard Leo Stokes
Well, I said there is no way to prove it outright. I do the spell, and
something happens very soon afterwards (what I want to happen). Maybe it's
precognition and I'm just doing the spell immediately before the event
happens, and if I did or didn't the event would happen anyways. Who knows?
Rich
Karissa Walden
To continue on this thread.....
My husband told me he did not think I would make it through this series.
But, I have just started the second cronicles and I have to admit that
even though these are the most depressing books I have read in a while,
I love them.
Karissa
back to lurking
Rae Stabosz
>sta...@bach.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>
>> reality. Human reason and divine revelation are the two sources which
>> the intellect uses in order to so know.
>
>This is a better model than some I've heard, but I would disagree that it's
>complete. Roughly speaking, I'd say that the intellect, intuition, and
>emotions are our tools for apprehending reality.
===========
Hi Amanda,
I agree with you here. I am hazier about human reason than I
am about the intellect itself. I am considering the intellect and the
will to be two faculties which are immortal of their nature, as opposed
to the body which is mortal but which will be raised to immortality in
Christ.
I guess I'd call intuition a source, like reason, that the
intellect uses in order to know spiritual reality. I think the
emotions, like the brain, are physical entities which interact with the
spiritual faculties in ways that I'm not confident enough of to write
about. So I'd amend my own explanation to say that reason, intuition
and divine revelation are the sources the intellect uses, and that
emotions play a role with both the intellect and the will. Emotions
can help the intellect see clearer, or impede its clear sight. They
can help the will be pre-disposed to choose rightly, or they can
weaken it so that right choice is more difficult.
Thanks for the correction. For most of my life I eschewed
a formal use of reason because I believed it to be a weapon used
by men to subjugate women. I no longer believe that, and I am probably
now still so struck with the objective beauty of human reason that I forget
my old friend intuition, which has been like the air I breathe.
Rae
Gregory Altman
: Can spirits influence people that don't believe they exist?
What is "spirits"? Is that a manifestation of some kind of intelligent
(or semi-intelligent) energy? If that is what you mean, then the answer
is yes - we are all affected by (and are built of) energy. Another
question is, do the "spirits" exist as (semi-)intelligent beings? I
do not believe so. I maintain that what we take for "spirits" are either
nonintelligent forces or energy manifestations made temporarily by some
intelligent being.
: Does magick work on people that don't believe in magick?
What is "magick"? If it is a process or a ritual performed to create
an energy manifestation with a particular purpose, then yes. Once
some energy is directed, it will influence whatever other energy (or
beings) it touches in the process. BTW, magicians that get hurt are
those that generate energy manifestations that they have no control
over.
I wanted to mention some wise words that go something like: any
sufficiently advanced technology looks like magick. And it is
true since technology manipulates energy in its different states.
So, another answer to your question is another question: does the
electricity work on people that don't believe in it?
--
Greg Altman - gal...@ingres.com (My opinions are almost ALWAYS my own)
bill nelson
: >:
: >: Malevolent angels can attack our will or our intellect, to weaken
: >: the first & deceive the second. I don't know enough about them to
: >: know how either can affect our bodies.
:
: >This is a matter of faith alone. There is no proof that such entities
: >exist - much less that they can interact with the physical world.
:
: What would constitute proof? God's Bleeding Eyes! Even if I
: were to prove that the square root of two is irrational, it would only
: be valid within my chosen array of axioms.
:
: What proof do you want? To whom should it be given?
:
: Proof! Faugh!
Nor is there anything to show that they exist. That is why I stated it
was simply a matter of faith.
: "yeah, if you were really cool you'd take the day off to
: show me more miracles."
It would be a start.
: Here, skeptics. Here is proof that magick does not exist.
: Playing Paganini on a violin is a magical act. I take a violin.
: I attempt to play Paganini. Revolting noise results. Therefore
: Paganini is a hoax, because the burden of "proof" is on those who
: believe that this music was once produced with a violin. While
: this does not disprove the existence of magick, it certainly
: reveals that all these folks who have been talking about it are
: crazy, or at most unscrupulous hucksters...
First, your proof stinks. There is no evidence that playing Paganini
on a violin requires any magic. Moreover, even if it did, all your
"proof" would show was that you were unable to apply magic to the
playing of Paganini - nothing more.
Of course, there are probably as many definitions of "magick" as there
are people who know the word.
: >: I don't know anything about magick. [You will not doubt say "well
: >: that's surely apparent", but from reading here I glean that magick
: >: has to do with influencing the imagination & the emotions & with
: >: stirring up the will to 1) seek wisdom and 2) perform good
: >: acts. Pardon me if this is a
: >: wrong reading of it.]
:
: >Yes, magick is those things, for some people. So, you do know a bit
: >about magic - although you are unaware of just how much. For example,
: >prayer is magic. A religious service/celebration is magic. A naming
: >(cristening) is a magical act. Magick is these things, and much more.
:
: >Bill
:
: Magick is having a FAQ frequently posted so we can all
: use the same definitions!
If necessary.
: How many people find it frighteningly tedious to keep
: running across threads that whine and hedge and hint about the
: definition of "magic(k)"? We don't seem to make new insights
: when we cover this ground, and we keep covering it over and
: over.
I don't usually need to try to define the term - most people wh
post to alt.magick know how the term is used on that group. However,
for some reason, this thread was posted to alt.pagan - where the
commonly used alt.magick definition is not known, or understood.
This is the last posting on this thread I will make to alt.magick.
It does not really belong there, as I was answering a post on alt.
pagan.
Bill
Andrew Milmoe
>: Here, skeptics. Here is proof that magick does not exist.
>: Playing Paganini on a violin is a magical act. I take a violin.
>: I attempt to play Paganini. Revolting noise results. Therefore
>: Paganini is a hoax, because the burden of "proof" is on those who
>: believe that this music was once produced with a violin. While
>: this does not disprove the existence of magick, it certainly
>: reveals that all these folks who have been talking about it are
>: crazy, or at most unscrupulous hucksters...
bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) replies:
>First, your proof stinks. There is no evidence that playing Paganini
>on a violin requires any magic. Moreover, even if it did, all your
>"proof" would show was that you were unable to apply magic to the
>playing of Paganini - nothing more.
I believe that what Richard is trying to say is not that playing
Paganini (cute choice...drop the last 3 letters ;) is magick,
but that a particular violinist being unable to play Paganini
does not mean that no one can (i.e. 'playing Paganini' is just
a delusion); the extension of this analogy is that if a
particular person that believes in magick cannot 'cast' some
particular spell, it does not mean that magick does not exist.
If you want to argue against that statement, go right ahead;
just be certain what your 'opponent' is stating before you
shoot it down on reflex.
Zaloom.
Andrew
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Andrew Milmoe |My opinions are those of UIUC, but they
mil...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu |are under contract to vehemently deny
|it at every oppotunity.
Jaguar
Bill:
As a practitioner of a shamanic path, I would say that I have had
quite enough 'proof' that spirits/totems/fey DO exist.
I would be hard pressed to prove it to someone who did not
witness or have similar experiences however.
These are not things that can (yet) be measured in a lab..
or predicted by an equation..... not provable by science
because we do not have a way to measure it.
However, perhaps one day we can figure out a way to..
or maybe never...
Jaguar
wyrd
Lance A. Brown
True, but if her only aim was to convert us all to the RCC, she is
being VERY subtle about it. Like I said, her posts are well written
and thought out, and, IMNSHO, only mildly evangelistic.
David Skreiner
Hmmm. In Peter Carroll's "Liber KAOS", the magickian makes an attempt
to create a system of Quantum Metaphysics. It gives his thought on
the effect of magic (even with formulae): In a probabilistic Universe,
the magical work can only be the altering of a probability. Magic
doesn't work every time, you see... The formula (I reproduce it from
memory) goes something like this:
The power of a ritual is determined by A x B x (1-C) x (1 - D)
where all are on a scale ranging from 0 to 1
a is the intensity of the magickal gnosis
B is the intensity of the Will
C is the subconscious resistance of the magician
D is the magickian's awareness of the will.
The probability of the desired result happening is determined from the
probability that it will happen anyway (coincidence) plus something
with the magical factor (above). Carroll has a nice way of trying
to explain the 'supernatural', and why it works. I think he may
come closer to the 'truth', if there is one, than the full-on
'cosmic influence' people....
Any comments?
ciao dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember! King Kong died for Your sins!
_________________________________________ __________________________
"Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't | dskr...@metz.une.edu.au
mean I'm wrong. I'm mad but not ill." | da...@htu.tu-graz.ac.at
----------------------------------------- --------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinion are mine, and you can't have them.
David Skreiner
The question was to find the link between ritual, magic(k), and the
origins of Theatre. Another essay is an explanation of a magickal
Invocation of the War God in partly magickal, partly theatrical terms.
Should I post them? I can also email them to people if you want...
(Oh, by the way: The 'big' one got a High Distinction, th other one
(on the War thing) a Distinction....)
Hail Eris -
David
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dskr...@metz.une.edu.au "Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't
da...@htu.tu-graz.ac.at mean I'm wrong. I'm mad but not ill"
Corun MacAnndra
>I have recently written an essay (term paper) for my theatre course.
>The question was to find the link between ritual, magic(k), and the
>origins of Theatre. Another essay is an explanation of a magickal
>Invocation of the War God in partly magickal, partly theatrical terms.
>Should I post them? I can also email them to people if you want...
Yes, please. As an actor I'd be very interested in reading them. If there
isn't enough interest for a post to the net, please email them to me.
>(Oh, by the way: The 'big' one got a High Distinction, th other one
>(on the War thing) a Distinction....)
COngratulations.
Bb,
Corun
David C Winters
>In article <14...@grivel.une.edu.au> dskr...@metz.une.edu.au (David Skreiner) writes:
>>I have recently written an essay (term paper) for my theatre course.
>>The question was to find the link between ritual, magic(k), and the
>>origins of Theatre. Another essay is an explanation of a magickal
>>Invocation of the War God in partly magickal, partly theatrical terms.
>>Should I post them? I can also email them to people if you want...
>
>Yes, please. As an actor I'd be very interested in reading them. If there
>isn't enough interest for a post to the net, please email them to me.
Speaking up from the non-acting contingent: Post, please. Or email me a
copy of them as well.
Now, speaking as a kid who used to try to peek under the wrapping paper
of the presents a few days before my birthday: To whom do you refer to
by the phrase 'War God?' Are you using it in the larger sense, in which
it can refer to the different dieties (from differing pantheons) whose
concerns are conflict? Or are you using it to describe a particular
individual, in the way that someone would refer to Diana, Pan, or
Odhinn?
--
--
David wint...@pitt.edu
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Barney R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
bill nelson
:
: >First, your proof stinks. There is no evidence that playing Paganini
: >on a violin requires any magic. Moreover, even if it did, all your
: >"proof" would show was that you were unable to apply magic to the
: >playing of Paganini - nothing more.
:
: I believe that what Richard is trying to say is not that playing
: Paganini (cute choice...drop the last 3 letters ;) is magick,
: but that a particular violinist being unable to play Paganini
: does not mean that no one can (i.e. 'playing Paganini' is just
: a delusion); the extension of this analogy is that if a
: particular person that believes in magick cannot 'cast' some
: particular spell, it does not mean that magick does not exist.
: If you want to argue against that statement, go right ahead;
: just be certain what your 'opponent' is stating before you
: shoot it down on reflex.
No, he was stating that he was giving a proof. I was simply
making the point that you did, that there was no such proof.
Bill
mark
Well, my first reaction is that this formula is clearly inaccurate; either
your memory, or the author has screwed it up. The reason that I say this is
that it appears to occur in a closed system: there are *no* terms that
reference either the outside world, or the object of the ritual. To begin
to seem reasonable, you would need (at least) a term for something analogous
to friction, or distance, or time; something, in other words, to represent
the inertial and other forces of the universe resistance to change (you
*do* know Newton's three laws, *right*?), and another term to represent the
target of the ritual's resistance to the same.
As an example, if I pull a wagon up a ramp with a rope, there is resistance
from friction, both from the rope on the ramp, and the bearings in the
wheels; and there is the mass of the wagon (and the rope), and the force
of gravity (which I am attempting to overcome).
Another, perhaps more appropos example, would be if you are
driving a truck with no power steering. The magickal ritual would be like
turning a corner. In the above formula, there is no term for the resistive
force, just "I want to turn it!!!".
mark
Richard M. Romanowski
>mil...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Andrew Milmoe) writes:
>:
>: >First, your proof stinks. There is no evidence that playing Paganini
>: >on a violin requires any magic. Moreover, even if it did, all your
>: >"proof" would show was that you were unable to apply magic to the
>: >playing of Paganini - nothing more.
>:
>: I believe that what Richard is trying to say is not that playin
>No, he was stating that he was giving a proof. I was simply
>making the point that you did, that there was no such proof.
>Bill
Dear Bill (and all the other folks reading this):
Thanks for your comments on the olfactory nature of the
proof offered. I respect them tremendously and will meditate upon
them each night, before saying my prayers and going to bed. Since
the sense of smell is attributed to the sixth key of formation,
we all know the relevance in this instance.
Gosh, Bill (and everyone else), I'm moved to gratitude
that I wasn't using sarcasm of any kind. Sarcasm was always spurned
by other writers, such as Crowley, who always said exactly what
he meant in unambiguous terms that no one could misunderstand.
But if I used sarcasm, or ironical double-entendres, or something,
we might start meditating on the Qabalistic Antithesis inherent
to the Western Tradition -- and we wouldn't want that on alt.magick.
What we really want on this board is a minimum of constructive
dialogue dealing with occult arts and sciences.
tersely yours,
rmr
Richard M. Romanowski
>In article <14...@grivel.une.edu.au> dskr...@metz.une.edu.au (David Skreiner) writes:
>>bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>>drag...@jhunix8.hcf.jhu.edu (Karen L Hsu) writes:
>>>:
>>>: Yes, magick does work on people who don't believe. I confess that I
>>>: used the "evil eye" to cause harm to someone for revenge purposes. The story
>>>: behind it is sad and dreary, so I won't burden you with details, but I
>>>: succeeded in giving my victim an eye infection and willing my victim to be
>>>: subjected to a 6-week detention (this was in high school.)
>>>
>>>Ah, but what do you have to show that you were the actual cause of either?
>>>I submit that all you have is co-incidence.
>>
>>Hmmm. In Peter Carroll's "Liber KAOS", the magickian makes an attempt
>>to create a system of Quantum Metaphysics. It gives his thought on
Ah, yes. The effort was made known to all the physicists
of my acquaintance, who straightaway abandoned their careers to
study Chaos magick, saying that Carroll had done such a masterful
job of summing up all the wisdom of Physics and yet transcending it
that they would trade their dross for his gold.
I was not convinced as they were, reflecting that if
the accumulated wisdom of Western Physics were collected into
a charge at the top of my nasal passages with an equivalent
explosive power to dynamite, I would not be able to blow my nose.
Therefore, I remain ignorant of that Science of Kings, Chaos Magick.
>>the effect of magic (even with formulae): In a probabilistic Universe,
>>the magical work can only be the altering of a probability. Magic
>>doesn't work every time, you see... The formula (I reproduce it from
>>memory) goes something like this:
>>The power of a ritual is determined by A x B x (1-C) x (1 - D)
>>where all are on a scale ranging from 0 to 1
>>a is the intensity of the magickal gnosis
>>B is the intensity of the Will
>>C is the subconscious resistance of the magician
>>D is the magickian's awareness of the will.
Of course, if such things could be measured in units,
this board would be sci.magick. Coulombs and volts can be
measured with physical apparatus. How does one measure gnosis?
>>
>>The probability of the desired result happening is determined from the
>>probability that it will happen anyway (coincidence) plus something
>>with the magical factor (above). Carroll has a nice way of trying
>>to explain the 'supernatural', and why it works. I think he may
>>come closer to the 'truth', if there is one, than the full-on
>>'cosmic influence' people....
>>
>>Any comments?
>Well, my first reaction is that this formula is clearly inaccurate; either
>your memory, or the author has screwed it up. The reason that I say this is
>that it appears to occur in a closed system: there are *no* terms that
>reference either the outside world, or the object of the ritual.
All things are aspects of the One Thing;
The outside world and object of ritual are things;
the world and the object are aspects of the One Thing.
Therefore, the magician IS his environment. (Or her
environment, although I'm not sure Peggy, Amanda, and any other
sorores on this board would take offense). Gravity only resists
your will to fly because your subconscious resistance permits it
to do so.
To begin
>to seem reasonable, you would need (at least) a term for something analogous
>to friction, or distance, or time; something, in other words, to represent
>the inertial and other forces of the universe resistance to change (you
>*do* know Newton's three laws, *right*?), and another term to represent the
>target of the ritual's resistance to the same.
Why do we assume that such things exist?
[and the answer resounds from a thousand shouting throats:]
Authority, Perception, and Reasoning!
Quite so ... but far too much from Authority and Reasoning,
and far too little from Perception. Still, I had to ask, lest you
assume too freely, and end up crippling our magic by the assumptions
of physics. If physics were one tenth so fundamental as it claims
to be, nothing but physics would be taught in the schools. Physics
reduces and analyzes nicely, but it (and its exponents) are usually
lousy at synthesis and holistic comprehension.
And if you don't believe me, ask Lupo the Butcher about
the ontology of the One Thing. Make sure he posts his replies
publicly.
>As an example, if I pull a wagon up a ramp with a rope, there is resistance
>from friction, both from the rope on the ramp, and the bearings in the
>wheels; and there is the mass of the wagon (and the rope), and the force
>of gravity (which I am attempting to overcome).
If as an example, it is my will to invoke Sol, I vibrate the
requisite names and trace the requistite figures instinctively, from
the long training which karma and destiny have given me; my
subconscious mind effortlessly brings the synchronicity of Sol to
my attention, and immediately gold, sunny days, panthers, orange
juice, and blonde women enter my life, since my Will is One with
the Universal Will.
You will object that one cannot pull a wagon up a ramp
by vibrating names and tracing figures; I will retort that
one cannot do High Magic by pulling on ropes; and our Logic
teacher will thwack us both upside the head and warn us not
to argue generals from particulars on the Final Exam!!!!
>Another, perhaps more appropos example, would be if you are
>driving a truck with no power steering. The magickal ritual would be like
>turning a corner. In the above formula, there is no term for the resistive
>force, just "I want to turn it!!!".
Ah, this *proves* he isn't a magician. The Great White
Brotherhood *always* sends trucks with power steering...
More seriously, if it is your Will to turn a truck with
no power steering, and your Will is linked through muscles, nerves
and bones, I'd wager ten to three that the wheel gets turned...
Note the pivotal distinction between Will and desire...
> mark
Ah, me. Excuse the sarcasm above, mark, I'm feeling
saucy today.
You have a valid point -- namely, that Carroll should
stick to non-mathematical poses. I seem to recall that he
hoped his book would improve "aetheric engineering" by which
he meant useful rule-of-thumb accomplishments, using subtle
forces beyond what is ordinarily thought of as "matter" or
"energy."
If Carroll does magick, I think I'll become an engineer.
But if Carroll does engineering, I think I'll become a magician.
And no matter what he *or* Pratchett says, Octarine is
an orangey color, somewhat like tangerine.
LVX
rmr
bill nelson
: that I wasn't using sarcasm of any kind. Sarcasm was always spurned
: by other writers, such as Crowley, who always said exactly what
: he meant in unambiguous terms that no one could misunderstand.
: But if I used sarcasm, or ironical double-entendres, or something,
: we might start meditating on the Qabalistic Antithesis inherent
: to the Western Tradition -- and we wouldn't want that on alt.magick.
: What we really want on this board is a minimum of constructive
: dialogue dealing with occult arts and sciences.
So, is there anything wrong with pointing out the errors in a
sarcastic reply? You certainly had someone trying to read more
into your posting than was there.
Maybe I should have just made a sarcastic response.
Bill
mark
>markbr%rad...@natinst.com (mark) writes:
>>In article <14...@grivel.une.edu.au> dskr...@metz.une.edu.au (David Skreiner) writes:
>>>bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>>>drag...@jhunix8.hcf.jhu.edu (Karen L Hsu) writes:
>>>doesn't work every time, you see... The formula (I reproduce it from
>>>memory) goes something like this:
>>>The power of a ritual is determined by A x B x (1-C) x (1 - D)
>>>where all are on a scale ranging from 0 to 1
>>>a is the intensity of the magickal gnosis
>>>B is the intensity of the Will
>>>C is the subconscious resistance of the magician
>>>D is the magickian's awareness of the will.
>
> Of course, if such things could be measured in units,
>this board would be sci.magick. Coulombs and volts can be
>measured with physical apparatus. How does one measure gnosis?
>>Well, my first reaction is that this formula is clearly inaccurate; either
>>your memory, or the author has screwed it up. The reason that I say this is
>>that it appears to occur in a closed system: there are *no* terms that
>>reference either the outside world, or the object of the ritual.
>
> All things are aspects of the One Thing;
> The outside world and object of ritual are things;
> the world and the object are aspects of the One Thing.
>
> Therefore, the magician IS his environment. (Or her
>environment, although I'm not sure Peggy, Amanda, and any other
>sorores on this board would take offense). Gravity only resists
>your will to fly because your subconscious resistance permits it to do so.
I can't fly, because I think I can't? Reminds me of Doug Adams, I ought to
forget to fall.
>
> To begin
>>to seem reasonable, you would need (at least) a term for something analogous
>>to friction, or distance, or time; something, in other words, to represent
>>the inertial and other forces of the universe resistance to change (you
>>*do* know Newton's three laws, *right*?), and another term to represent the
>>target of the ritual's resistance to the same.
>
> Why do we assume that such things exist?
>
> [and the answer resounds from a thousand shouting throats:]
> Authority, Perception, and Reasoning!
Umm, I *beg* your pardon, but what Authority did I cite? The example I
gave was a little red wagon, a rope, and a ramp. Repeatable, demonstrable
proof, that a kid could understand. Ooop, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that
you object to perception and reason.
>
> Quite so ... but far too much from Authority and Reasoning,
>and far too little from Perception. Still, I had to ask, lest you
>assume too freely, and end up crippling our magic by the assumptions
>of physics. If physics were one tenth so fundamental as it claims
>to be, nothing but physics would be taught in the schools. Physics
>reduces and analyzes nicely, but it (and its exponents) are usually
>lousy at synthesis and holistic comprehension.
>
Seems to me your understand of physics is either based on idiots that
coudn't teach, or a lack of knowledge on your part. If you are so
underwhelmed by physics, may I ask what you are doing posting here?
<snip>
> You will object that one cannot pull a wagon up a ramp
>by vibrating names and tracing figures; I will retort that
>one cannot do High Magic by pulling on ropes; and our Logic
>teacher will thwack us both upside the head and warn us not
>to argue generals from particulars on the Final Exam!!!!
>
One comment: I believe that you *could* do High Magick by pulling
on ropes, as long as they are made of the right material.
<snip>
> Ah, me. Excuse the sarcasm above, mark, I'm feeling
>saucy today.
>
> You have a valid point -- namely, that Carroll should
>stick to non-mathematical poses. I seem to recall that he
>hoped his book would improve "aetheric engineering" by which
>he meant useful rule-of-thumb accomplishments, using subtle
>forces beyond what is ordinarily thought of as "matter" or
>"energy."
>
> If Carroll does magick, I think I'll become an engineer.
> But if Carroll does engineering, I think I'll become a magician.
>
mark
Richard M. Romanowski
>I can't fly, because I think I can't? Reminds me of Doug Adams, I ought to
>forget to fall.
Well, "think" is slippery. Being able to fly would require
a great deal of self-transformation, but by means of self-
transformation anything is possible.
>>
>> To begin
>>>to seem reasonable, you would need (at least) a term for something analogous
>>>to friction, or distance, or time; something, in other words, to represent
>>>the inertial and other forces of the universe resistance to change (you
>>>*do* know Newton's three laws, *right*?), and another term to represent the
>>>target of the ritual's resistance to the same.
>>
>> Why do we assume that such things exist?
>>
>> [and the answer resounds from a thousand shouting throats:]
>> Authority, Perception, and Reasoning!
>Umm, I *beg* your pardon, but what Authority did I cite? The example I
>gave was a little red wagon, a rope, and a ramp. Repeatable, demonstrable
>proof, that a kid could understand. Ooop, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that
>you object to perception and reason.
>>
No, no.
Authority, Perception, and Reason are WHY we assume that
friction and the like exist. I don't object to perception and
reason.
>>
>Seems to me your understand of physics is either based on idiots that
>coudn't teach, or a lack of knowledge on your part. If you are so
>underwhelmed by physics, may I ask what you are doing posting here?
I'm posting to alt.magick. If you require that anyone
posting to alt.magick have respect for Physics, add me to your
kill file.
>>
>One comment: I believe that you *could* do High Magick by pulling
>on ropes, as long as they are made of the right material.
Babylonian knot magick, you mean?
Fine, but no wagons there...
>>
>mark
LVX
rmr
David Skreiner
DS>to create a system of Quantum Metaphysics. It gives his thought on
>
> Ah, yes. The effort was made known to all the physicists
>of my acquaintance, who straightaway abandoned their careers to
>study Chaos magick, saying that Carroll had done such a masterful
>job of summing up all the wisdom of Physics and yet transcending it
>that they would trade their dross for his gold.
Pfffft. Hihi. Did they _really_ try to send that theory out to
real physicists? *ROTFL*
I thought it was not bad, if a bit experimental and based on
some of what seems to be the more obscure parts of physics
(I hated physics in school, and am doing arts now, so I know
little about it). However, I like Carroll's _attempts_ at
explaining magick via physics better than people's telling me
it's all those little spirit things from the fifth dimension.
They really tried, did they? I still can't believe it... but then,
Hybris seems to be the main danger from Magick...
>Therefore, I remain ignorant of that Science of Kings, Chaos Magick.
Hmmm. What works for you, you do. Then you tell others about it,
and if they laugh about it, fine. That seems to be the essence of
the Chaos system, and so far I haven't been able to find anything
seriously wrong with that. For me, being "Chaotic" simply means that
I try everything I like, without having to stick to a particular
path or system or colour or whatnot for any longer than I like.
>>>a is the intensity of the magickal gnosis
>>>B is the intensity of the Will
>>>C is the subconscious resistance of the magician
>>>D is the magickian's awareness of the will.
>
> Of course, if such things could be measured in units,
>this board would be sci.magick. Coulombs and volts can be
>measured with physical apparatus. How does one measure gnosis?
Not at all, or rather from experience ("Ahhh, that was good. What,
I've been at it for five hours?") ;-)
This same question is one of the major faults within that system,
but even Carroll seems to be aware of that. That this can at best
be a hypothetical foundation to try and explain why magick might
sometimes work, seems obvious to me - and I am amazed that the
IOT actually distributed the stuff to serious physicists. Amazed,
and very amused.
>>Well, my first reaction is that this formula is clearly inaccurate; either
>>your memory, or the author has screwed it up. The reason that I say this is
>>that it appears to occur in a closed system: there are *no* terms that
>>reference either the outside world, or the object of the ritual.
>
> All things are aspects of the One Thing;
> The outside world and object of ritual are things;
> the world and the object are aspects of the One Thing.
Pardon? Everything is one? Um... Except for the small chance that
I give that "Probability" explanation, I guess Magick is _nothing but_
using the Will to change one's own subconscious, thereby affecting
change in the real world. (Sorry, jsut my belief for the week)
>>As an example, if I pull a wagon up a ramp with a rope, there is resistance
>>from friction, both from the rope on the ramp, and the bearings in the
>>wheels; and there is the mass of the wagon (and the rope), and the force
>>of gravity (which I am attempting to overcome).
>
> If as an example, it is my will to invoke Sol, I vibrate the
>requisite names and trace the requistite figures instinctively, from
>the long training which karma and destiny have given me; my
>subconscious mind effortlessly brings the synchronicity of Sol to
>my attention, and immediately gold, sunny days, panthers, orange
>juice, and blonde women enter my life, since my Will is One with
>the Universal Will.
Which still doesn't pull that wagon... um. *DUCK*
The probability of that wagon going up there on its own is fairly
close to nil. Therefore, you'd need extreme acts of magick, with
a few weeks preparation probably, and all that just to pull a dumb
little red kid's toy on wheels up a ramp?
If you instead decide to invoke Sol, you get:
a) minimalist, materialist: Psychological benefits like stress
release, you have a good time, and maybe get into a self-
induced trance. Yippee.
b) magickal: You tune your mind into the universe and make nice
(intelligent) blondes appear. Wowee.
c) chaos theory: You bend the probabilities of blondes appearing
in your life by getting into the appropriate ecstasy. Yhis,
I find too different from "normal" magick, only it uses
Carroll's number games and inaccurate formulas instead of
magick's other spirit games and inaccurate formulae.
By the way, the efficacy of that invocation would be determined
through the relative (personal) power of your mind, which Peter
Carroll seems to like to split into those four factors. Aw heck,
it's just another system to play with....
>>Another, perhaps more appropos example, would be if you are
>>driving a truck with no power steering. The magickal ritual would be like
>>turning a corner. In the above formula, there is no term for the resistive
>>force, just "I want to turn it!!!".
>
> Ah, this *proves* he isn't a magician. The Great White
>Brotherhood *always* sends trucks with power steering...
But maybe he's with the Illuminati? ;^)
> You have a valid point -- namely, that Carroll should
>stick to non-mathematical poses. I seem to recall that he
>hoped his book would improve "aetheric engineering" by which
>he meant useful rule-of-thumb accomplishments, using subtle
>forces beyond what is ordinarily thought of as "matter" or
>"energy."
I agree - he doesn't seem to have converted a great many particle
physics people, for example. Or has he? (I'm still laughing -
Did they _really_ send that to physicists? Pfffthaha)
Well... In my opinion, he wished to create a system of magick in
which there are no gods or supernatural powers save those that
exist in your own mind; and these are only created by the magickian
through a conscious act, in order to affect a change in accordance
with the will. It seems to work fine for me - I think the old
Crowley-saying "There is no God but Man" could well be "There is
nothing supernatural, save what humans create in their minds".
> If Carroll does magick, I think I'll become an engineer.
> But if Carroll does engineering, I think I'll become a magician.
Wasn't he trying to combine the two? Seems he didn't hit a
big success with either group.... ;0
> And no matter what he *or* Pratchett says, Octarine is
>an orangey color, somewhat like tangerine.
Hmmm. How can i get to see that colour... do i _have_ to smoke
uh hand-rolled cigarettes, or meditate for hours...
(Hah! Now I know what I'll be concentrating on next... find The Colour!)
Pax! 93
dave
_________________________________________ __________________________
"Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't | dskr...@metz.une.edu.au
mean I'm wrong. I'm mad but not ill." | da...@htu.tu-graz.ac.at
----------------------------------------- --------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinion are mine, and you can't have them.
I'd like to speak for UNE or TUGraz, but they won't let me.
Mike Toepke
>r...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski) writes:
>DS>Hmmm. In Peter Carroll's "Liber KAOS", the magickian makes an attempt
>DS>to create a system of Quantum Metaphysics. It gives his thought on
>>
>> Ah, yes. The effort was made known to all the physicists
>>of my acquaintance, who straightaway abandoned their careers to
>>study Chaos magick, saying that Carroll had done such a masterful
>>job of summing up all the wisdom of Physics and yet transcending it
>>that they would trade their dross for his gold.
^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
note the obvious humor
>Pfffft. Hihi. Did they _really_ try to send that theory out to
>real physicists? *ROTFL*
>I thought it was not bad, if a bit experimental and based on
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>some of what seems to be the more obscure parts of physics
>(I hated physics in school, and am doing arts now, so I know
^ ^^^^
>little about it). However, I like Carroll's _attempts_ at
^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^
>explaining magick via physics better than people's telling me
>it's all those little spirit things from the fifth dimension.
>They really tried, did they? I still can't believe it... but then,
>Hybris seems to be the main danger from Magick...
how long have you been practicing?
...
>dave
Dave, I don't think you're real.
Do the rest of you see him too?
R
Tammy Stark Blandino
>markbr%rad...@natinst.com (mark) writes:
>>
>>Well, my first reaction is that this formula is clearly inaccurate; either
>>your memory, or the author has screwed it up. The reason that I say this is
>
>on up...
>
rest of post deleted....
Hey guys!....read my subject line