Magickal Science
Sidney Lambe
Magickal science (MS), like physical science (PS), is based upon
observing the natural world.
Unlike PS, MS does not arbitarily decide that some perceptions
are valid and others are not.
PS assumes that only physical perceptions, only the phsyical
world, are "real". This is an assumption that cannot be tested
with the scientific method, because it is based upon that
assumption.
Which is why PS is really just another religion: You have to
accept this assumption on faith or physical science makes no
sense at all.
And to students of magickal science, it _doesn't_ make sense.
Physical science looks at the universe with blinders on.
One of the fundamental tenets of magickal science is: "Nature
_is_ supernatural". There isn't anything but nature and nature is
not limited to what the physical senses perceive. Inner and outer
are different phases of the same phenomenon.
What one experiences is real.
Never accept a theory that is contradicted by your experience.
Never accept a theory that cannot be validated experientially.
Sid
--
My newsfilter kills more than half the posts to these groups,
including replies to any name in my killfile. So if I don't
respond to a reply it is because I didn't see it.
Thou shalt not suffer a troll to speak in thine presence.
hy_b...@shaw.ca
> Magickal Science
>
> Magickal science (MS), like physical science (PS), is based upon
> observing the natural world.
>
> Unlike PS, MS does not arbitarily decide that some perceptions
> are valid and others are not.
>
> PS assumes that only physical perceptions, only the phsyical
> world, are "real". This is an assumption that cannot be tested
> with the scientific method, because it is based upon that
> assumption.
>
> Which is why PS is really just another religion: You have to
> accept this assumption on faith or physical science makes no
> sense at all.
>
> And to students of magickal science, it _doesn't_ make sense.
>
> Physical science looks at the universe with blinders on.
>
> One of the fundamental tenets of magickal science is: "Nature
> _is_ supernatural". There isn't anything but nature and nature is
> not limited to what the physical senses perceive. Inner and outer
> are different phases of the same phenomenon.
>
> What one experiences is real.
>
> Never accept a theory that is contradicted by your experience.
>
> Never accept a theory that cannot be validated experientially.
I feel that I can apply what you have said to what I experienced.
Sidney Lambe
:-)
Exactly!
I read your post about the car wreck. I too have walked out of
disasters that should have killed me, without a scratch.
Tom
> Magickal Science
>
> Magickal science (MS), like physical science (PS), is based upon
> observing the natural world.
>
> Unlike PS, MS does not arbitarily decide that some perceptions
> are valid and others are not.
Actually I think you have this exactly backwards. Nothing is physical
science is decided arbitrarily. Everything in magick is.
> PS assumes that only physical perceptions, only the phsyical
> world, are "real".
Only measurable phenomena are of concern to physical science, not
"physical perceptions" whihc is only how things appear to us from a
particualr point of view. For instance, physical science isnt
concerned with the famous "face on Mars" because that's only a trick
of light and shadow seen at a particular angle, creating an illusion
of a face to our perception. "Reality" is the province of
philosophers. "Measurement" is the province of physical science.
> And to students of magickal science, it _doesn't_ make sense.
Quite often, people who can't make sense of some effect in the
physical world try to attribute it to magick. Magick is simply some
effect you can't explain adequately.
> One of the fundamental tenets of magickal science is: "Nature
> _is_ supernatural".
"Supernatural" means "beyond the natural". The "supernatural" is, by
its very definition, *not* nature.
> There isn't anything but nature and nature is
> not limited to what the physical senses perceive.
Well of course. Radio waves, for example, do not appear to our
physical senses at all. We cannot see them, hear them, feel them,
smell them, or taste them. We discovered them only because they have
consistent effects on things we *can* perceive. Yet, nobody with more
than a few functioning brain cells is going to argue that radio waves
are "supernatural" simply because we cannot perceive them directly.
> What one experiences is real.
What one does not experience may also be real, but you won't know it
for sure. And of course, just because we experience something does
not mean we are interpreting that experience correctly.
> Never accept a theory that is contradicted by your experience.
Never accept that your interpretation of any experience is infallibly
correct.
> Never accept a theory that cannot be validated experientially.
Don't accept it without some good, healthy doubt even then.
You still haven't accounted for the "science" in your explanation of
"magickal science". Please describe the part of your experience which
is not composed of physical perception.
aine
Many have. Yet it is not the physical body that the situations are
trying to reach. That is not where the spirit is.
It is wonderful many walk away from wrecks/situations, I have myself.
The lessons are what occurred in our hearts. souls, spirits..thinking
at the time it occurs and what we get from them/how we apply them
after.
One hears from many..I have cheated death 10 times. They think they
are protected. A golden child touched by the Gods and cared for.
Then why must they continue to cheat death? The cycle continues
because the lesson is not to think you are so above death or being
hurt as much as what are you doing to be put in a dangerous situation
to begin with.
The only time (for unenlightened) our true selves, thoughts and what
is in our hearts without blinders on comes to the front is in a life
and death situation.
aine
The fact that you see death as a punishment and life as a reward does
not match up with your teachings here. Which of course is odd anyway
that you teach and preach and piss and moan about ren.
sarchasm
> "Sidney-alan-john-kent-et-al-Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Magickal Science
>
> Magickal science (MS), like physical science (PS), is based upon
> observing the natural world.
>
> Unlike PS, MS does not arbitarily decide that some perceptions
> are valid and others are not.
>
>Actually I think you have this exactly backwards. Nothing is physical
>science is decided arbitrarily. Everything in magick is.
>
Almost - the initial premises in physical science are a priori assumptions
based upon attempts to interpret physical, (objective), phenomenon. Magick
would appear to consist of alternate attribution assumptions based upon some
theoretically physical and a great deal of nonphysical, (subjective),
phenomenon. One could say that magickal interpretations are intended to
bridge the physics and metaphysics, (as a guess).
>
> PS assumes that only physical perceptions, only the phsyical
> world, are "real".
>
>Only measurable phenomena are of concern to physical science, not
>"physical perceptions" whihc is only how things appear to us from a
>particualr point of view.
>
"Sid" has demonstrated difficulty in distinguishing his subjective
perceptions from physical phenomenon which are not dependent upon his point
of view opinions. For instance, someone who hallucinates an "experience" is
having just as "real" a preception as others who are not hallucinating.
>
>"Reality" is the province of
>philosophers. "Measurement" is the province of physical science.
>
Given his various prior pronouncements to that effect, the 'sid-troll' has
tacitly maintained that he is in possession of accurate knowledge regarding
the nature of "reality". There has been no indication of a foundation for
such a belief other than 'because he says so'.
>
> And to students of magickal science, it _doesn't_ make sense.
>
>Quite often, people who can't make sense of some effect in the
>physical world try to attribute it to magick. Magick is simply some
>effect you can't explain adequately.
>
Mostly, agreed. What happens when all possible physical explanations have
been exhausted and only the improbable ones remain, eliminate the extreme
improbabilities or come up with new probabilities?
>
> One of the fundamental tenets of magickal science is: "Nature
> _is_ supernatural".
>
>"Supernatural" means "beyond the natural". The "supernatural" is, by
>its very definition, *not* nature.
>
This contradiction has been raised before with "sid" and he refuses to
directly address it, since it challenges his penchant for baseless
pronouncements. Instead, he's shown he prefers to attack the challengers,
not the content of the challenges.
>
> There isn't anything but nature and nature is
> not limited to what the physical senses perceive.
Well of course. Radio waves, for example, do not appear to our
physical senses at all. We cannot see them, hear them, feel them,
smell them, or taste them. We discovered them only because they have
consistent effects on things we *can* perceive. Yet, nobody with more
than a few functioning brain cells is going to argue that radio waves
are "supernatural" simply because we cannot perceive them directly.
> What one experiences is real.
What one does not experience may also be real, but you won't know it
for sure. And of course, just because we experience something does
not mean we are interpreting that experience correctly.
>
What one experiences may also be as 'unreal' as a hallucination not being
experienced by others.
> Never accept a theory that is contradicted by your experience.
Never accept that your interpretation of any experience is infallibly
correct.
>
Yet, this is exactly what "sid" does, as he's posted in his various
prouncements of his personal assumptions.