tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post6182246586163151433..comments2024-02-20T09:54:37.105-06:00Comments on Talking About Ritual Magick: Is Magick Scientific?Frater.Barrabbashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689013897789072360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-53690885929464965452012-02-24T18:39:58.839-06:002012-02-24T18:39:58.839-06:00“S.S.O.T.B.M.E.” ... First book I read related to ...“S.S.O.T.B.M.E.” ... First book I read related to Chaos Magic and the illustrations from A.O. Spare are wonderful. I love this book. <br /><br />Great post. No comment at the moment, however. Brain fry is my excuse and I'm sticking with it. :)Rose Weaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11289493128753395716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-16946200874874955662012-02-24T16:11:51.346-06:002012-02-24T16:11:51.346-06:00@Annael Qaa - Actually, I don't have the impre...@Annael Qaa - Actually, I don't have the impression that you think magick is somehow reducible to science, but others do have that opinion. (See the Yahoo group for the ESSG). Also, magick and science are not completely opposites, since they both rely on observation - it's just what they do with that observation is where they function as opposites. <br /><br />Magick is complimentary with science (and likes to use science in unscientific ways), but I don't think that scientists feel that way about magick. Supposedly Art and Science are opposites, and Religion and Magick. However, these positions are to be taken as more like compass points rather than domains, at least according to Dukes. So saying that they are polar opposites probably would violate exactly what Dukes is saying in his book. <br /><br />I would order his book, read it, and then we can have an interesting conversation. Ramsey Dukes is an easy read, and he is quite funny in a dry English sort of way. <br /><br />Regards -<br /><br />FBFrater.Barrabbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11689013897789072360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-32022540118669700402012-02-24T15:41:29.587-06:002012-02-24T15:41:29.587-06:00I'm aware that Rhine isn't the best exampl...I'm aware that Rhine isn't the best example in terms of his results, but I included it because it's the best documented case I know of that shows the academic bias against that sort of work. You can find much of the same if you look into academic studies of esotericism, which for years were relegated to second-class status in the fields of history and philosophy. There is what I consider to be some good work going on in the field of parapsychology today, such as ganzfeld and quantum diode research. Skeptics do a lot of hand-waving at those, but so far I haven't seen anything all that convincing.<br /><br />I do hope that I haven't given you the impression, either now or at any point over the years, that I base my assessment of magick as a whole upon some sort of scientific proof. That is most emphatically not the case. Obviously the subjective side of magick can't be evaluated in this way, and from that perspective alone I've found my magical work extremely fulfilling. To my way of thinking a (fairly) reliable scientific model would only add to its appeal.<br /><br />Is it Dukes' contention that magick and science are opposites, or is that your own interpretation of his work? I ask because I recognize the diagram you included as based on Jung's functions of the ego (Thinking/Feeling and Sensation/Intuition). According to Jung these functions are not opposites, but rather complementary. The latter is how I would describe my approach to magick as well - integrating the rational and the irrational into what (I hope) constitutes a coherent whole, or at least will someday.Scott Stenwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389664381513219613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-59017420524338501152012-02-24T15:12:01.117-06:002012-02-24T15:12:01.117-06:00@Ananael Qaa - According to Martin Gardner, one of...@Ananael Qaa - According to Martin Gardner, one of many critics of Rhine's work "Rhine's results have never been duplicated. This includes the claim that Rhine repeatedly tried to replicate his work, but produced only failures that he never reported."<br /><br />The problem is that many other scientists have dismissed Rhine's work as spurious or suspect. And this is very much the point that I made in my article - science must debunk anything that is irrational. As for psychology, there is a branch of research psychology that has been accepted by the hard sciences, and that is Behavioral Psychology. I myself don't find much in that branch of psychology that is relevant to my magickal work, but others might not agree with me.<br /><br />As for whether I see a connection between magick and scientific parapsychology, I think that a scientific proof of magick, psychism, or even that consciousness exists is irrelevant. Whether science proves that magick works or not doesn't seem to invalidate magick for myself. If I make rules or establish boundaries, someone or something comes along and shows them to be incomplete and therefore, invalid. That's why I think that magick often functions more like an entity rather than a physical phenomenon.<br /><br />I would recommend that you read Ramsey Dukes' book "SSOTBME" - you might come away with a slightly different opinion. Supposedly, Ramsey Dukes started out from a strict science background and from that point, got involved in magick. <br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />FBFrater.Barrabbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11689013897789072360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-30207619405909741662012-02-24T14:18:07.927-06:002012-02-24T14:18:07.927-06:00As you know, as a scientific illuminist myself (&q...As you know, as a scientific illuminist myself ("the method of science, the aim of religion") I disagree with the contention that science and magick should be thought of as opposites. I would agree, though, that since we can say with some confidence that whatever rules or principles govern magical operations are statistical rather than deterministic much of what you say here is correct. Shit is always going to happen, but that doesn't mean you can't come up with general principles that hold over time. Psychology has been dealing with similar phenomena for more than a century from a scientific perspective. The big hole in terms of objective data that is missing in both psychology and magick is a way to measure consciousness, since in magick and some areas of psychology the operator is always part of the experiment.<br /><br />Here's a related question - do you see any connection between magick and parapsychology? If you don't, that right there might explain the differences in our perspectives because I do and always have. Back when I was in college looking over the works of J.B Rhine and others a number of experimental psychologists came out and said that Rhine had provided more than enough experimental data to demonstrate the existence of just about anything, but that they just couldn't accept it because it was in regard to psychic phenomena. As a magician, I'm not nearly so closed-minded.Scott Stenwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389664381513219613noreply@blogger.com