Verwirrung

Ripped this discussion, built on Cram’s earlier post and musings, from the forum.  Enjoy.

LMNO:  Because so far, nothing else seems to be working.  Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.

Baron von Hoopla:  Bingo.

Cramulus: [to LMNO] that’s a great angle.  Could you expand on that a bit?

GA:  I don’t know about more relevant, because I wasn’t around 50 years ago.  It seems to me that the Cold War was in pretty dire need of some lightheartedness, even more than our current War on Terror.

It just seems relevant to me because I personally had (have?) a problem with taking things far to seriously.  And because many of the people around me have concepts like ‘mandatory’ and ‘forbidden’ and apply them to things that are really optional.

I makes me sad when people tell me that things like religion are to important to joke about, or old propaganda posters too offensive.  It bothers me when I get suspended from school or hauled before Loss Prevention for reasons like “I know that this is just a misunderstanding, but we must follow procedure.”  It hurts when I look around my infosphere and see nothing but advertisements, especially when those ads are meant to make people feel bad about themselves.

The world is ruled by an endless morass of strictures and convention, and no one wants to take responsibility for them.  People are perfectly content to let the train follow its own momentum down the tracks, even though they don’t like where it is or where it is going, because this is Policy, it’s what Everyone (the everyone in “everyone knows that…”) has Decided.  Rules and traditions might be annoying, but it’s Not In Our Power to do anything about them.

LMNO:  In today’s so-called “Information Age”, most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff.  Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input.  While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle.  What’s more, to get through to the growing population of Jaded Couch-Dwelling Fuckheads, there has been a new approach of making the stuff more-or-less self referential, as in, “we know you know we’re trying to manipulate you.  See how cool that makes us?”

So, what do you do when you are flooded by 50,000 points of view?  The old way was to have Rules and Tradition and Procedure and Black and White. To take that stuff and cram it into a narrow worldview, distorting what little information you actually notice.  Which only serves to hold you back, slow you down, and shut you up.

Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.  You do your best not to have your views manipulated by stuff, and you do your best not to manipulate stuff to fit your views.  Which serves to keep you on the Edge of What’s Going On.

At least, that’s the general idea.

Tempest Virago:  [to LMNO]  You think the input is “pretty much bias-neutral”? I think (almost?) all of it has an angle of some sort. Maybe we’re defining this differently. Can you explain what you mean by that?

[referring to the final two paragraphs]  Absolutely. I think this is also something that can be really hard to do, especially the part about not manipulating information to fit what you already believe. I think doing that is a pretty natural way of dealing with the world, and the best way to avoid it is to be conscious of yourself and how you’re reacting to new information. I certainly tend to subconsciously manipulate information to fit my (pinko hippie liberal) view - something I try to keep an eye on.

Verb:  I think the reason Discordia is relevant today is that these are times of change and the Discordian thrives on change. Tradition and static states of being can only hold out for so long when facing broad changes in the world around them. The pace of change has in many ways reached an all-time high and old, static models of dealing with change are becoming untenable. Discordia, which is generally dynamic, irreverent, and unafraid of change, is an increasingly good way to maintain your sanity and well-being (or whatever is left of them.)

Ratatosk:  I don’t know if it is ‘more relevant’. It seems to me that people act, pretty much, like people. People in 1959 aren’t all that different from us, they may have slightly different rituals and memes, sleight variations in clothing styles and slang, but the humans appear the same. Our society may be more open and more tolerant (at least the aspects of society that are very popular right now), but humans interact and follow the rules of that society, pretty much as they did in 1959.

The people who are cogs in society behave like they’re supposed to. The conservative cog grinds to the tune that their entire society is about to collapse, the liberal cog whirrs away at a Utopia that seems as far away now as it did in 1959 and the ‘rebel’ cogs turn to the tune of “I Did It My Way” (though now it might be the Sex Pistols version…).

If Discordianism was relevant ever, then it’s relevant now… in theory, if not in specific memes. To think that life now is DIFFERENT, is (in my opinion) to confuse the trappings of society with the functionality of humans. Even the best broadband available won’t stop an asshole from beating his wife and kids. It won’t stop the man who is not comfortable with his own feelings from bashing gays. All the information in the world, won’t necessarily make us elect a good president or change the basic selfish behavior of most monkeys on this planet.

However, IF the information is served on a platter, complete with trimmings and yummy sauce… some humans might eat it and change. Discordianism, I think, provides just such a platter. The concepts of general semantics, the limits of perception, the bias of our own reality and the ability to ‘STOP’ doing the things we don’t like, aren’t unique to Erisian Enlightenment. However, for at least some humans, Discordianism  seems to make the ideas palatable, digestible and useful.

So Discordianism was valuable then and is valuable now… because humans are human

Tempest Virago: [responding to Ratatosk] ‘m inclined to agree with this. I think every generation thinks they are fundamentally different than all of the ones before them.

Dr Payne:  Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of “cause” or “movement”.

Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes “everyone” thinks that “everyone” else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.

But all of this means nothing to me.

I am not an activist, I don’t go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn’t, I don’t do it. I don’t expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don’t expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.

Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It’s a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn’t give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn’t have the call signs Discordia offers, the “fluff” like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.

I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.

Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.

I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.

Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.

I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.

I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I’ve only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I’ve sat down in when I’m weary, the desk I’ve used to write some of the most personal and important things I’ve ever written, it has been the mirror in which I’ve seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.

And I’ve learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.

I know what I’ve learned, I’ve learned to question what I know, and I’ve learned to learn more, always learn more.

For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.

Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.

Dido:  discordia is a reason that makes a random group of people focus on something.
as stated above, it bypasses the usual reason for banding together in humans, which is affinity.
instead of feeling an affinity for others we gather around the concept, which is so fuzzy as to allow many different interpretations and therefore attracts a rather diverse group of people. affinity creates groups where the reality tunnels of the participants are safe from interruptions.
groups around a more abstract cause tend to suffer from the lack of basic emotional affinity. such groups develop hierarchical structures in order to keep from dissolving. structures determine the flow and shape of thought and ideas. in a hierarchical group any idea, no matter where in the group it originated will have to pass through the top in order to be accepted, which will restrict the possible output of that group dramatically.

a group that gathers around the idea of disagreeing with each other and still manages to find a modus operandi, however chaotic, is more creative than a group whose output is always in the shape of the head of whoever is at the top.

in my opinion the relevance of such a focus or group does not depend on it happening in one epoch or the other. if it exists it has the potential to change any epoch.

damn i am preaching.
look what you made me do.

YattoDobbs:  i think what will make discordian the most ordox religion yet is that it includes agree to disagree in most of its scriptures

plus we can talk to those science atheist about our lovely new planet: they are already in philosocial mode over what she really is… astrological boards are PRIME numberS
plus like below are also rich
{http://www.mauricefernandez.com/}
[plus we need to make sure the poee symbol becomes the standard one vs an E or whatever]

Eris Mars through a square and the Aries location and Eris Saturn through a quincunx and the 10th house location. This suggests an issue of authority (Mars also in Capricorn ruler of Eris and the 10th)

I predict that awareness of this fundamental need of any modern society will become part of the collective consciousness when Eris transits through Taurus, if we manage to get through the rest of the Aries transit.

I believe that Eris has to do with stirring stuff up,controversy,ideology, civil/equal rights matters,standing up for self/others,advocacy, bigotry,racism,minorities,race relations,diversity,…..all those things are connected to each other too.

I know that it is customary to look to ancient Greek myths for clues to the meanings of newly-discovered planets, and the mythology of Eris has a lot to do with strife and warfare, which would seem to suggest an affinity with Aries. However, in this case, the quest for mythological clues is misleading because, in ancient Greek society, the Eris principle was so horribly, monstrously perverted that the relevant myths were twisted and poisone

Eris has a natural affinity with Libra, not Aries. Ancient Greek society depended heavily on slavery, and, especially in Athens, women were basically locked up in the home, and initiation into manhood typically involved submitting to a cult of pederasty, with the victims getting their chance as perpetrators a few years later. This was a society that was horribly out of balance, so it stands to reason that those Eris myths are pretty sick.

So now Eris shows up in Aries, highlighting the imbalances in our own culture, at a time when the human race desperately needs to get it right, or else… I would like to suggest that Eris in individual horoscopes is often associated with the karmic residue of unbalanced relationships that many if not most of us carry over from past lives. Eris is in Aries, so, well, such issues can manifest in such negative Arian modes as violence or domination. Or, on a more positive Aries note, getting involved in a civil rights campaign. Fight for your rights…

LMNO: [responding to Tempest Virago] Law of Fives.  There is far more neutral sensory input than biased out there, but you’re just noticing the deliberately manipulative stuff.  Try looking for the stuff that’s value-neutral, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Lupernikes Shadowbark:  Puts me in mind of a tv program I watched last night and later discussed with the wife (conversation is as important as the show in some ways).  It was called Putting God on Trial and it was essentially centred around this premise;

It was set in Autchwitz in the barracks (i shudder at the name but it’s the best i can think of) of a group of jewish prisoners; waiting to be ’selected’, in other words to die.  They were a mix of young and old, German, Polish, educatated and tradesmen, rabbis and so forth.  First they realised that here they were all equal, horribly and wrongly so but equal.  Next they decided to agree on who was to Blame and decided it had to be God.  Afterall what had women and children and many of the inmates done to deserve this from a God who was supposed to protect them and had signed a Covenant with Moses?  They took the Torah apart (you must see it, incredibly educational and interesting) and decided to put God on trial on a rabbinacal court.

Of course there were many speeches but one stood out to me and I’ll paraphrase.  It was given by a French Physicist;

“look into the sky and what do you see?  Stars, millions and millions of stars.  There are (hazy here) 10 billion in our galaxy alone and we know, or at least presume that many of these have worlds like this one, with people and so forth.  As jews we must acknowledge that all this was created by God.  So we then believe that this God, who created all of those stars we can see, all of those worlds, and the many more which exist outside our galaxy also made other beings which must logically live there, directs all His love and attention at one world on the outer arm of one galaxy and, not only this, but on one single group of people on this one world.  This is not only unlikely but it is stupid…”

This led on to us discussing some form of Higher Intelligence, some creative force, some deus ex universalia who, at least, set matter in motion all those eaons ago.  I do believe that some such entity or group of entities exist but that, at the core of it all is chaos, no Design, no Plan, no Destiny of All save expansion and survival of the whole, like our own bodies, which are all the world some creatures will ever know.  But this entity, call it Creator if you like, call it the mind of the Universe (maybe a kind of subconcious hive mind), call it the body of the universe..whatever you like but IT is not interested in us, indivual us.  It doesn’t care what we do or how we do it, howe we dress or how we pray or what rituals we observe; all these are means of control invented by other humans no more.  It requires no worship, nor recognition, any more than we require that of the bacteria who live in our gut.  They do their job and don’t damage our body (they occasionally embarress us but hey ho..) we leave them to it.  Same with the Universe’s alleged Gods or Earth’s alleged Gods, we don’t do  anything to interfere with the smooth running and alone we are left, mess around and out come the lycocytes to show us where we can go.

ok this is getting long now but the essence is that morality is a matter of choice, anything not required to be taboo in order to stop total civil war and dissolution of any form of social order (murder, rape, direct theft and so on) is the same; free will.  We should be good people because it is Right, not (like millions of religious folk) because we are afraid not to be.  Not God to use as an excuse for wars and violence, no God to make one group seemingly better than another, no scripture, no dogma (maybe catma is allowed) just free will.  Crowley’s ‘Do what thou wilt’ is one of the most misunderstood statements in recent history!  He meant “Do what your will decides, not what you are told” or ” do good because you want to, not because you have to”….what he didn’t mean is “lets do all the bad and nasty stuff because we can”.  To me then, to be a Discordian is all free will, about choice sans punishment to make you make the right choice (not The Right Choice but your own right choice) but your own freely made decision.  In the end we have to think for ourselves because no-one else will do if for us…

but then, how many people in the world spend their lives think other people’s thoughts?

Maybe Discordia is not needed more now than ever but certainly usual Discordian attitudes won’t tend to land one on the gibbet doing the hemp fandango (you can do that at home now, or the tango, or the lie there and do nothing…up to you lol)

Ratatosk: [repsonding to LMNO]  Do you mean that the universe supplies information that we can call value-neutral (notwithstanding how humans perceive it) or that humans perceive that value neutral information as value neutral?

LMNO: Um… both?  I think I mean that there is a vast amount of information that was not created with the specific intent of manipulation.

Cain:  Why is Discordianism still relevant in 2008?

Because I am the The Decider, and I have decided that it is.

Debate over.

Oh, alright then, some more evidence.

Two thousand and eight kicked off, in my mind at least, with two major events.  The first was the US Presidential election.  The second was the Anonymous “war” on Scientology.  The first of these two quickly became a spiralling mess of such a degree that parody and satire often seemed more reasonable than what was actually being said.  Therefore, parody and satire need to step up to the plate, and have done so admirably.  In a country where Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart can give more prescient and accurate news than many of the major news stations, in such a country comedy with a message is King.

The second was interesting, because it showed how an internet subculture with no centralization, no money and little in way of common purpose (indeed they often flaunted their chaotic and contradictory ways) could pose a threat to a very powerful and rich, highly centralized religious cult.

Change is still the name of the game.  As corporate elites have stepped up to the plate, promoting and co-opting every new youth movement and subculture, in some cases from almost the very start, subversive counterculture has done a vanishing act.  It still exists, and its still there, but its a true invisible college, taking form on the internet and in the street.  Flashmobs and other microcultures have become very possible with the rise of mass membership websites such as Facebook, putting Situationist tactics into the hands of online activists, who can construct an event with a few clicks, so long as they can get enough people interested.    Appear, perform and disperse.  We’re evolving and changing, because anyone who stands still for too long is going to end up in the cross-hairs of one marketing executive or another.  Subversion and change, nanoculture and personal freedom, are becoming synonymous.

We’re continuing to have a small, if noticed effect on the mainstream as well.  V for Vendetta and Lost, a program and a film with some very Discordian influences, are favourites of viewers all over the world.  High Weirdness is back in fashion, too.  It doesn’t matter if its a giant artistic piece of dogshit which has got loose, or J. J. Abrams latest show (the X-Files esque TV program he intends to air on Fox this fall), the strange and the odd are still capturing imaginations and peoples curiosity.

Chaos, equally, is back in fashion more than ever.  No matter if its politics or the music industry, the old rules of how things are done, and the elites who control them, are under a barrage of assaults from newcomers and individuals with the power to move and shake the industries they work in.  With the second internet revolution in full swing, its becoming easier than ever to get one’s voice out there, create an audience, be heard, and bypass the traditional methods of control to say what you want.  Equally the weather and the stockmarkets are both going crazy, and becoming ever harder to predict.  Many of the old assurances seem to be crumbling in the bright lights of the 21st century.

The arts of obfuscation, disruption and, well, we can only call it trolling have become more popular than ever, diffusing down into society.  Since trolling is part Situationist theatre, part postmodern identity shifting, and we have natural advantages in areas such as that, we have an edge on tactics that the media, the blogs and activists are only just starting to grasp.

Religious fundamentalism is back on the scene, with all the stupidity and farce such an event brings.  Whether its bearded lunatics in caves or meth-taking, rent-boy hiring, homophobic minister, religion is once again proving its potential to destroy lives, ruin countries and damn people on the flimsiest of charges.  And so, it must come as a relief to many to find a religion that doesn’t want your unquestioning obedience, wont damn you to hell for your sins, doesn’t want your time or money or impose any strange dietary practices (barring those with hotdogs), but wants you to have a good time and tell anyone who tries to get in your way to STFU.

Ratatosk: [responding to LMNO]  But, can any human process information without manipulating it in some way? Can they share information without manipulating it in some way?

Non-manipulated information might exist in some sense, but perhaps in the same manner that Objective Reality exists.

Maybe it exists somewhere outside of the BiP?

LMNO:  Who said anything about shared information as being the sole type of information that exists?  Information is not limited to communication.

Ratatosk: Well, I can agree with that. Maybe you could provide me an example of the sort of information you’re thinking of?

LMNO: Walking out into the steet and seeing a bus coming at you is a form of information

Ratatosk:  But isn’t ’seeing’ both communication of information (light bouncing into eyes, processed by rods and cones and sent to brain) and manipulation? The brain processes information, ties it to symbols and interprets it into “OSHI! Bus!” or “Ah, Bus, but since you just had some Angel Dust, it won’t hurt you.” or “Ah Bus, life sucks and it will all be over soon.”

Or am I missing something here?

LMNO:   The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.

What the fuck, Rat?  Are you missing the forest here?

GA:  Ahh, but internal entities are.  The fact of the bus is value neutral; how you perceive the bus is not.

Cramulus:  semantics aside, I think I understood what LMNO meant. That the information age is presenting new and unique problems in communication. There’s just so much more of it now than there ever was. And that since Discordia is very much about making personal choices about information and separating signal from noise, it’s an extremely valuable tool for dealing with 21st century civilization.

LMNO:  [to GA] I’d appreciate it if you actually read the post in question.

Ratatosk:  [responding to LMNO]  Possibly.  I reread your post and I think we’re in agreement that lots of Information exists in the Universe that has no agenda or spin.

Maybe we have multiple orders of Information:

Non-Biased Information (Object labeled “Bus” is travelling at Speed “X” from Point A to Point B)
Self-Biased Information (OSHI! I’m between Point A and Point B!”)
Pre-Biased Information (”Today, Alaskan Democratic Senator Ted Stevens stole a bus and ran over 30 people”)
Self Biased/Pre-Biased Information (”God damned Democrats, we have to get them out of office before they run us all over… wait… Ted Stevens isn’t a… Err, Nevermind!! DAMN the PINKOS!”)

So maybe all information IS based on Non-Biased information (except outright lies/fabrications?), but all information available to humans is processed/manipulated in at least some sense.

So I think you’re saying that the Discordian may grok this conundrum and do their best to discard as much bias as possible?

I think…

LMNO:  Dude.

Read my post again.

I said nothing about “all” information.

I said while much of the information is value-neutral, more is becoming biased, and also meta and self-referencing.

And Discordia helps with this, some.

Ratatosk:  Ok, let’s set aside “all” for a second… it was more internal monologue I think.

I think I grok what you’re saying now.

The ratio of Value-Neutral Information to Manipulated-by-Some-Other-Human Information is shrinking.

Both forms of information aren’t value-neutral once they’ve been processed by self… but that’s beside the point of your main argument. See I was off on a tangent!

The Good Reverend Roger:  Relevant?  Who cares?

I’m just here to gnaw at the foundations of society like a diseased termite.

Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of “cause” or “movement”.

Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes “everyone” thinks that “everyone” else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.

But all of this means nothing to me.

I am not an activist, I don’t go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn’t, I don’t do it. I don’t expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don’t expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.

Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It’s a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn’t give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn’t have the call signs Discordia offers, the “fluff” like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.

I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.

Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.

I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.

Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.

I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.

I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I’ve only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I’ve sat down in when I’m weary, the desk I’ve used to write some of the most personal and important things I’ve ever written, it has been the mirror in which I’ve seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.

And I’ve learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.

I know what I’ve learned, I’ve learned to question what I know, and I’ve learned to learn more, always learn more.

For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.

Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.

This is a spin-off from my post yesterday about Quentin Fucking Letts, but its something I’ve been considering for a while, and wanted to talk about more, as a general trend within current political discourse, especially among the “opinion-formers” in the media.

Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I’ll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.

Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. “All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored” and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the ‘decent left‘ sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan ‘Not the Minister’ Johnson’s lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I’m only violent in my presentation of language.

In short, I’m not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise ‘extraordinary rendition’, hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the “war on terrorism” and the war in Iraq especially. I don’t think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don’t think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.

That’s decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because “I’ve got mine, and fuck everyone else”. Or cowering in a corner going “oh no, the scary people different to me are here, we must deal with this immediately!”

Because, lets face it, when you dig behind the supposedly ‘respectable’ and civil writing of papers like The Sun, or the Daily Mail, or especially The Express, that is all that is left. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I’m sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.

But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he’s perfectly alright!

Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and nasty leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those horrible and sweary Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.

Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won’t be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is “manners masquerading as morals”, to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.

Noting the letters that Lett’s reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher’s leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn’t answer that, because he can’t. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger’s sticking out while discussing the pro’s and con’s of torture and genocide as well.

The fact is that you simply can’t fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they’re vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole “oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the ‘Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases‘” bollocks has to stop.

And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you’d be fucking angry too.

And if you don’t like it, Letts, you can blow me.

I know I really should leave such things to Anton Vowl, as he is so much better at them. But I was trolling around the Daily Mail messageboard on a slow Friday afternoon when I saw the topic title….

“are atheists infiltrating organizations such as education, government etc?”

and I just knew it was going to be a clusterfuck of epic tinfoil hattery and right-wing paranoia. I was not disappointed.

In the thread about the dreaded Heinz Mayo “gay” ad, one respondent stated that atheists are infiltrating organisations that influence government, educational policy, etc.

Can atheists really do that? After all, they are not an organised as such. Is the real truth merely that more people are rejecting religion and becoming de-facto atheists, such that the proportion of atheists in all sorts of organisations is increasing because of that, i.e. it’s mere statistics?

Is it really a conspiracy?

A sensible start….surely this cannot last. Atheism debates are like those on abortion…pure flamebait.

YES Mikey my man, oh yes!! Read Peter Hitchins, an ex-communist..

The communist party used to say…go out and submerse Into the establishment, government, schools, authorities…I’m not quoting but find out Mikey. Look at government… the number of ex-communist party members and ex-marxist types…

YES, THE COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY IS BACK IN FASHION! POST #1 BITCHES, AND WE’RE ALREADY BACK TO THE 1950S, BOO-YAH!

Just look at the members in the NUT to find out how far these people have infiltrated education and the ‘elf and safety brigade in local councils are teeming with them. Even the higher ranks of the police have them in abundance.

Reminder: if lots of educated people agree, its not because of superb reasoning skills and access to more factual information, its because they are being manipulated by a conspiracy.

I haven’t read anything this funny in a long time! “These people” indeed. Atheists were around long before anyone caught religion, and do you know what? We’re not communists, marxists or fascists, we’re just people who lead ordinary decent lives without believing in any gods - and you sound so horrified, as if we’re trying to undermine society!

Atheist disinformation agents have even infiltrated the Daily Mail!

i think you are right. you only have to look at Great Britain with high teenage pregnancies, broken homes, political correctness and not being allowed to make judgements about peoples’ lifestyles. There are people being shot dead for being in the wrong place.

I think having christian values did keep people on the right track.

Goddamn those fucking Atheists and their lack of morals making it unacceptable for me to persecute teh gheys. I see no unintentional irony in my previous statement whatsoever, either.

The people that have infiltrated our society have no religious preferences. They probably call themselves atheists but their religion is Marxism. They don’t worship a deity, just an idea that is a proven failure. I suppose that’s the difference: nobody has ever proven that God does not exist whereas Marxism has been tried and has failed miserably.

But that won’t stop those who are hungry for power over the proletariat. Antyjax is obviously familiar with the type, and there are thousands of them, in education, local government and the criminal justice system. It isn’t an organised conspiracy, but each of them are following the teachings of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.

I’m sure that sounded really smart in his head.

Atheists tend to have the evangelical zeal of all religious zealots. They are so arrogant in their personal beliefs and self esteem, that they will not brook alternative belief systems!

All the PC claptrap, about renaming Christmas and the like, are all down to Atheists in Local Government.

What makes their actions all the more disgusting are their attempts at blaming Muslims, or Hindus, etc.. These unfortunates find themselves beset by Press Commentators, blaming them for something for which they have no knowledge, or inclination! To the contrary. They mostly enjoy the family aspects of our CHRISTIAN celebrations!

(The Muslims also hold Christ in high esteem and see no reason why they should not celebrate Christmas alongside Christians!……… Go to Saudi Arabia and you will find that out in short order!)

Yeah, goddamn Atheists and their Winterval! Religious nutters of the world, UNITE and let us be rid of this menace.

The point of the Bible, and Christianity is to promote harmony and a moral life. The 10 Commandments are good rules for morality, and which every decent human being will follow naturally. As our community has gone away from the church and the fear of what comes next (heaven, hell?), we are heading for barbarism. This is already clear by what is happening in every inner-city and now suburban streets with young men and woman being killed in cold blood for little or no reason. All religions have their own version of the 10 Commandments which again are moral pointers for the followers.

To go to the original question, Jax has answered it pretty well in my opinion. So yes I do really believe that atheists have infiltrated government at every level, hence it will reach the education system. Private church schools, I suspect, are an exception.

Britain was harmonious back when peasants believed the King ruled by the divine grace of God, and I approve of this system. Speaking as an agnostic.

I am more alarmed that teachers are using their jobs to poison the minds of our young children with their left wing convictions. It isn’t as if the teaching profession can be proud of their acheivements as so many children leave school without the ability to read or write properly. Universities are having to train youngsters the basics before they can persue the courses at Uni.

As for the police they have alienated the majority of the law abiding population with their policy of appeasing criminals and taking ot out on the rest of us.

Because ignorance and irrational brutality are hallmarks of all Atheist thought.

I cannot see God but I can have faith In God’s existence. Science may someday come to a proof of the truth or falsehood of a creator, but It Is In no position today to do either. If you say..”I see no evidence that there Is a God” fair enough. But go as far as saying..”I know there Is no God” and you have taken a leap of faith as large as that of any theist.

Although theists are better, because they are right. Or something.

I’m a Christian and I believe In God. It’s really quite easy, I believe there Is one God. He actually Loves you, and you try to mock and sneer, and yet he still Loves you. But I don’t actually have to explain my BELIEF to you, rather you have to explain your ASSERTION that there Is no God?? And you have to do a lot better than “I know there are no God’s because there Is no evidence.” You have a BELIEF that there Is no God, and that Is fine. But you don’t KNOW. So for all your assertions, you’re not being very assertive are you?

Because asserting an unknowable without evidence is an excellent system of logical thinking.

I believe the heading of this post is misleading and would be less so if it read “are the extreme left infiltrating organisations such as education ,government,etc.
the answer is yes they are and always have done just because tony blair denied them the right to stand as labour candidates doesn’t mean they have gone away or changed their beliefs they are still out there burrowing away into all aspects of our lives,and i don’t believe it will be long before they rear their heads again and feel safe to come out into the open again.

They are in all probability atheists,but that is not the b all and end all of their beliefs but may be the basis for them.
The question is ,are they a danger to our society must be an undoubtable yes,but is far more outreaching than just are they atheist !
Many atheists are content in their non belief,and content to let the rest of us believe what ever we want.

The extreme left are not .

Atheists are a front for the Communists! COMMUNISTS!!12!

I find it unbelieveably funny how non believers get so upset about something they don’t believe in

ok, you don’t believe in God. thats your choice. but why do you get so angry and upset with those of us who do believe in God? I find that it is especially the Christian faith which gets such anger etc directed towards it

I do not for one second believe in the hindu religion. However I don’t get all worked up and angry about it. Let them believe what they do.

atheisem is a belief aswell btw

Well, last time I checked, it wasn’t Hindus who had a majority in this country. But of course that couldn’t be the reason, could it?

On numerous occasions, I have had an atheist say to me something along the lines of

“we don’t know what caused the universe”

yet they will boldly claim that there is no evidence of God. If God caused / created the universe then it stands to reason that the universe (in fact all of creation) is evidence of God. Are you able to prove that God did not cause / create the universe?

Incidentally, to answer your question about why I believe in God, there are two reasons.

1. I believe what is said in the Bible about Him. The central theme is that before God, all have sinned and the punishment for that sin is death. God loved the world so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross so that people can be forgiven of their sins. Only in Christianity can I find this redemptive message where salvation is based on what Jesus Christ has done, not on some works-based method present in all other religions.

2. Since becoming a Christian, I have the testimony in my life as to answered prayer, or how God helped me through a difficult situation. The personal evidence for my faith is therefore my testimony. Now others can choose what alternative explanation they give to what I attribute to God at work, but description of something doesn’t alter what it is. It only affects one’s perception of it.

Logic is really wasted on some people.

The internet was created as a network to allow humans to mostly interact with others and share knowledge. Amirite? Much like the cruel open world, we’re all mean here, arrogant, and yet faceless. Why do I leech on for my daily dose of the tubes? Besides some form of ridiculous co-dependence, the internet has allowed me to remember that humanity, even at it’s most amazing and selfless hours are still nothing but a collective of douchebags spreading their douchebaggery abound whilst flaunting their epic douchitude. And I find it amusing.

Do NOT come to me asking for help, posting threads of pity or buttons of Paypal on pages asking for donations to keep your website alive or to keep your bunny alive. Eat your bunny plz, post pictures, grant us thee folk of the internet the horrormirth we desire to continue our lives in a sick, twisted illusion of awesome. I am awesome, because I tell myself this on a daily, as it helps me get through my day with no medication required™!

I don’t tell you about my debt, my marital issues, my financial stress and overall hatred of my current status quo in great detail and outside of general jest, because you’re not listening. I did the Livejournal thing for a while, and all it did was create an abundance of drama I haven’t seen since middle school anytime I posted about something a wee bit wrong in my life…then I remembered I didn’t read my friend’s shit anyway, so why the fuck bother?

I don’t listen; you don’t listen.

I began a brief ritual of ‘Wednesday Rants’ on the ol’ LJ during my Sophomore year in college in an attempts to at least bring some sort of reason into having the damned thing…it didn’t work, and I abandoned it rather quickly, as the answers I either got were my friends of the best variety giving me empty praise or some faggot twisting it into bullshit. Therefore, I felt like I accomplished nothing. I often think of posting on Verwirrung, and feel that in short, it will really only benefit those here anyway if at all, because outside of PD.Com, no one could give a fuck about this site, but perhaps they need to? Maybe? Who knows. I highly doubt anyone here will get anything from this smear on the blog.

I’m not an entirely cold human being, no…but I have my moments. I am close to those I allow to be close, care for them, laugh and cry with them, but my shell is a woman that rarely smiles. This doesn’t mean I’m upset, it means that I just don’t care to unless I have good reason. There was a Daria episode in which the football alum from their high school died because the fucking goal post fell on his head or some shit, and it was pointed out that the reason Daria never smiles is because she ‘thinks’. I often use this as my excuse when I’m asked about my sour countenance. The reaction I get is usually an odd look and a, “But I think too, and I smile, so smile, damnit!” My retort is typically, “Well, maybe you aren’t thinking hard enough?” And leave it at that. I also like leaving my thoughts to myself.

…I also hate my teeth, but that’s another tale entirely.

The internet is my escape from thinking, sometimes WAY too much. It allows me to be creative during work, or gaming, it allows me to sit here and giggle like a motherfucker all day long as I leave this forum tabbed on my browser. The internet is a collective of minds that do the thinking for me, and I like it that way, because it gives my tired brain a break. No doubt others do the same.

So why should I give a fuck about what’s wrong with your life anyway?

GTFO my internet with your piteous throws of fits and excuses as to why you NEED to be accepted or WHY you’re different. We’re faceless, mindless-minds who congregate to feed off of your insolence like sociopath vampires…hiding our identities while we attack you with little or no remorse. If you need a shrink, GO TO A SHRINK, don’t come here, to the internet to find answers because Wikipedia gave you a link or you felt lucky on fucking Google.

Of course, one could always allude the internet is like a gang that you need beating into, which means that you better lay there and get it over and done with quickly to avoid severe injury…rather than putting up a struggle.

Oh fuck it, I really just wrote this to conjugate forms of douchebag. You all may go about your business.

It’s a strange, chaotic world out there. It’s incomprehensibly huge and also so tiny it’s like your own personal cell. It’s miraculously beautiful and suicidally ugly. It’s both claustrophobically overcrowded and desolately lonely.

There are a lot of people - in this case I’ll use that nebulous “us” - who use weirdness, humor, and insanity as a means of coping. Perhaps lunacy allows some to achieve a sort of homeostasis, an equilibrium with the ubiquitious dynamics and pressures of modern living.

Over at the PD Forums we had a debacle yesterday. One of our newer members, Daruko, had a sort of “internet breakdown” when confronted by some opposition. It was both funny and hard to watch. The guy in question is a 25-year old father of two, who is “in dire need of some sillyness in his life.”

Somebody asked Tim Leary what to do after they had Turned On. He said, “Find the others.” And then they show up at our door.

Read more »

While some of you may remember that I was not totally impressed with the conclusion to John Gray’s book, Black Mass, I nevertheless found it a good and enjoyable read, which tied up the links between utopianism, religion, the Enlightenment and secular extremist movements rather well. Gray’s got a lot of perspective in his worldview, which I like. He instinctively understands both the historical context of the movements and how that applies when considered in the current context of events.

Which is why I am enjoying his book review/Comment is Free article. Gray committed the hideous crime of knocking down a few New Atheist sacred cows, and so the usual suspects have come running, howling and moaning with their usual strawmen about atheist inspired terrorism, totally ignoring the context of the argument or addressing any of the issues.

I have yet to see a commenter actually address his point about repressed religion being much like repressed sexuality, or the origins of secular liberalism being tied into the history of Christianity, and Nietzsche’s critical attacks on this. I have yet to see someone either deny that belief in such secular follies as free markets, global revolution or the global spread of democracy and progress are any less ridiculous than belief in a god, or try to claim they are in some way different.

Sure, the comments page may be filled with 300+ screaming monkeys trying to make Gray look like an idiot, but if they think they succeeded in this task, they’re only fooling themselves.

Even a committed agnostic such as myself can take pleasure in such a spectacle.

I’ve been plastering White Plains NY with memetic masterpieces on and off for almost a year now. A wguke ago, I made The Meme Bomb Collection, Volume Aleph, and it got me thinking about the meme bombs we’ve been generating.

A lot of the meme bombs we’ve come up with are effective in that they are self-contained information packages which in themselves suggest an attitude or position.

My favorite meme bombs are the ones which…

-Give the reader pause. It’s really easy to get lost in the “zombie lurch”, the “9-5 crawl”, the “pedestrian trance”, or whatever you want to call it. I like meme bombs which jar the reader out of that and make them suddenly focus on the present moment rather than where they’re going. Some meme bombs which accomplish this are ones which successfully address the reader. “Hey! You, in the Khakis!” (if you’re actually wearing khakis, it might be startling).

-Suggest something bigger going on. Such as “Congratulations! You’ve just found clue #3! The man in the green jacket will tell you what to do next.” These meme bombs make reality seem a little bit weirder than the pedestrian might expect. Is there some crazy game going on? When and where is it happening?

-Provoke critical thought. Such as “miscarriage is manslaughter“. When taken at face value their meaning seems clear - but they actually suggest something else entirely.

-Add some levity or humor to the reader’s day. I really wish people would stop taking their day-to-day shit so seriously. Sometimes hearing a joke or seeing a funny graphic right in the middle of your walk back from lunch is exactly what you need. The BIP refers to this as rearranging the machine’s local components to (hopefully, eventually) provoke a change in the whole system.

-The Absurd and the Surreal. The Principia calls these Mondos. like “If the telephone rings today, water it!” At first they seem to make sense, but the more you think about them the less sense they make. Personally, I get these phrases stuck in my head all day. “The womb is a prison - FETUS LIBERATION FRONT!”

I like meme bombs which appear friendly or light. Some of the meme bombs developed by the PD Community are hostile and bitter, or preachy and cerebral. Frankly, far left propaganda tastes just as bad to me as far right propaganda, so I dislike political meme bombs. I also dislike the ones which specifically seek to make people feel worse without provoking action. (such as: “Your wife is cheating on you.“)

I also feel that graphics and icons are essential to getting the reader’s attention. An attractive visual packaging makes the memebomb more likely to be remembered.

An ideal memebomb is something which the reader will repeat to others. Little kernels of wisdom are good for this, but I feel that most of them are a bit too dense or “heavy” to pierce the pedestrian trance.

a discussion from PD about memes and graffiti follows…

Read more »

There have been a couple of these lately, both on POEE and EB&G. While this probably means little outside of the context of the threads themselves, I still thought some of the insights and discussions on the topics were well worth sharing.

I have to admit my own personal biases run towards psychological models in this, but it seems a fair few other people thought the same so…well, anyway, here is some cut and paste of the more interesting sections. I think the most important lesson we learned from this debate, along with most philosophical topics, is to define your terms.

Cydira: Ok, there’s alot of people out there in the pagan community talking about spells and energies and alot of other things like that. listen to ‘em and it sounds like you’re trapped in D&D or LARP hell, especially if you get the one’s that are deep into the whole trend of communicating with other entities which are generally accepted as mythical (fairies, dragons, etc.). it’s almost enough to make you wonder if the pagan community is populated mainly with semi-functional schizophrenics or people suffering with some other neurological disorder.

I have seen and experienced somethings that stand outside of the realm of typical daily experiences. This is not something that makes me crazy, rather, it has made me inclined to accept evidence presented to me upon the basis of either my own personal experiences (because some of these things I wouldn’t have believed if I hadn’t seen ‘em myself) or if the evidence is presented in a manner that is sufficiently persuasive. as such, i’ve found that many of the people who claim to have experiences such as sexual encounters with animals or spiritual entities while they are tranformed into a different being are highly suspect. few, if any of the accounts, have been presented in a persuasive enough method to convince me to believe them.

this said, i do not expect anyone to believe me. what i describe here is a result of my own personal experience, occult research, and what i have observed as trends in the occult research of others. you can call bullshit on this and that’s ok. what i put forth here is a theory. theories can be accepted or disregarded on the basis of evidence presented. i will apologize if my phrasing is such that it does not adhere to the conventions of presenting a scientific theory. this is in part because i’m a bit rusty on that and in part because the subject matter doesn’t exactly bode well to that presentation format.

LMNO: Please try not to conflate the vague scientific term “energy” with the vague psychological term “energy”. It tends to piss off the scientists. Neither have been properly defined. You might as well say “aether waves”. Even “orgone” has been better defined that either of those.

Buddhist Monk Wannabe: This is interesting, because it goes back to the whole idea that magic is just something that you can do that other people don’t know how to do. I don’t call it casting spells, but I use meditation/visualization in much the same way.

Cydira: direct observation of magic is exceptionally difficult, especially when one is working with these ‘energies’ ascribed to objects, emotions, etc. indirect observation is somewhat easier.

an example of this can be given in something i’ve done in the past on several occasions.

there is a route that my husband and i drive to go visit our friends. traveling at the posted speed limit (65 mph, using cruise control) with favorable road conditions (fair weather, clear road conditions, and no traffic hazards), we can make the drive in 2 hours. when i concentrate on arriving in an hour and a half rather then 2 hours, i ‘bend’ time.

the conditions are the same as above and the time has not only been measured by myself, but also by others who are informed when we leave our home. i’ve yet to test this under other road conditions, but thus far, this has yielded the same result for about 75% of the trials done over the last few years. (the trip is a semi-monthly trip, so i regularly have the opportunity to do this little experiment.)

some may say that i’ve manipulated the energies around me to ‘bend’ time. i’m disinclined towards that argument. i think that it operates differently. unfortunately, i’ve to figure out a good way to phrase my theory before i post it. give me a little time and i’ll have it posted up here.

Singer: Like you… I am offended by the over-use of the term “energy”. I believe “energy” in all it’s categories is quantifiable and measurable. I believe that all life-forms create quantifiable and measurable energy as a necessary product of living. In fact I think I plunged into this thread with a fairly lengthy treatise on how to measure the electrical energy of thought.

I’m all about the potential application of personally generated energy. It seems reasonable to me that the bars of the BIP are maybe bent a little when someone or something (like a “healer”, or a “placebo”) triggers a mechanism by which an individual can bypass their own BIP to effect a desirable outcome… one that would not be as easy or possible without the help of the trigger.

This concept may have broader implications than the purely personal.

But, we’ll never know as long as we keep saying “well… it doesn’t seem possible so it’s not worthy of serious study”… especially since this leaves ANY study of “magical” phenomenon to the tin-foil hat brigade…

Rev Burnstoupee: so maybe science takes an objective approach to understand the universe, and religion/mysticism/magick takes a subjective approach. it seems silly to try and describe a religious/mysical/magickal experience in terms of objective reality. take certain ‘methods’ for enlightenment for instance. often times one method flat out contradicts another method. its not because one is ‘true’ and one is ‘false’. one method that works for one person might not work for another becasue of the variation of the qualities and experiences of the mind. so to discuss ‘energy’ in terms of a magical subjective experience can only be metaphorical. that isn’t to say that it doesn’t “work”. take kundalini energy, the ‘energy centers’ and the two ‘psychic pathways that travel up and down the spine. now they’re not really THERE…but in terms of a method they are used AS IF they were there. and apparantly there have been achievable results. nothing i can personally attest to and i wouldn’t expect a scientist to be able to measure any of that, but the practicioner seems to be different than before. it’s like the tree of life isn’t an actual TREE, ya know?

i need a :barstool: and a drink to match. at least alcohol is objective.

Ratatosk: Magic, in my experience appears as the change of perception through conscious will. That is, the conscious manipulation of filters and programs which process the data that our senses pick up. This includes not only relatively simple things like RAW’s “Quarter Experiment” where focusing on quarters leads to finding more quarters… but also complex things like body language, reactions of other people etc.

In more depth, I generalize magic into multiple types:

Perception Manipulation (Modificaton of which bits of reality to focus on)
Personality Manipulation (Invocation of Godforms, archetypes etc)
Programming Modification (Metaprograming, NLP)
Program Creation (Egrigores, NLP, “Spellcasting”)
Comfort (Ritual)

I’m sure there may be a thousand other ways to generically classify different forms of “magic”, but I hope the above gives you an idea of what I mean.

It appears to me, that magic was simply a model created without the advantage of modern neurology, one that we can replace to some extent with modern scientific models. However, and this is only my opinion, while we can discuss the theory in both magical and scientific terms, the magical model seems more useful in practice… probably due to the difference between ‘the road we can speak about and the road that we walk upon’.

As for the quantum model discussed earlier, I have given this much thought. Quantum mechanics, in my opinion are useful when discussing magic in one very important fashion. Quantum mechanics give us an example of a very useful model which seems magical to most people. It discusses things in symbols which kind of relate to reality, but not really. Our concept of what an atom looks like is symbolic.

Magic, I think could be seen in a similar vein. It’s a different model used to discuss concepts which may be very hard to otherwise discuss or attempt to implement.

Cainad: So we’re talking about two (or possibly more) rather different phenomena here. Allow me to make a very clumsy attempt to distinguish them, so some of you smart-alecks out there can point out the flaws in my explanation and clarify it for everyone else.

First off, we have “magic,” the thing that is supposedly indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology. This is very true, but only if you haven’t got the slightest fucking clue how that technology works. If you know how to use or make something of high technology, then that makes you a magician to the ignorant, but you know yourself, at best, only as a technician. A dude in a robe who throws fireballs around or summons demons by drawing circles with wonky symbols around it, a shmoe who wears a suit and makes things appear and disappear for the amusement of his audience, and a guy who can kill people instantly by pointing a funny-shaped metal tube at them and pulling a trigger are all ‘magicians’ to someone (like, say, Pacific Islanders before encountering Westerners), but to themselves they are merely using or applying something that they know and understand perfectly well.

Mahdgjickque, on the other hand, is the attempt to produce effects of the ‘magical’ variety (whatever those may be, according to the nature and level of one’s understanding of the world) without involving too much sciencey-sounding or applied technological stuff. These may be fireballs without fireworks, visions without schizophrenia, or even as internal as mind alterations without lobotomies. At the most basic level, it is an attempt to impose the Will (what we want) on the world without going through all the complicated, impractical, and/or dangerous steps normally required to make these things happen, if they are possible at all. Mahdgjickque is what happens when we cease to be content with seeing magic happen, and we decide to try and become the magicians.

So what I might be trying to say is that ‘magic’ and ‘mahdgjickque’ are the reflecting and non-reflecting sides of a two-way mirror. Studying mahdgjickque is the equivalent of putting your face really close to the mirror’s reflecting side and blocking out the glare with your hands so you can see what’s on the other side of it. Maybe, we tell ourselves, if we get really good at mahdgjickque we can figure out how to get on that side of the glass.

Cain: Well, this is why we need to define our terms in order to speak about this in any sensible way. English is well known for its multiple homonyms and if you are using one with an already pre-accepted meaning which is different from what you mean, then we are going to have problems. I can, quite easily, accept a psychological model of what is being proposed here. A metaphysical one is alot more difficult, however. If we don’t say from the outset what we are talking about, then natually the majority of people are going to go for the most obvious explanation and conclusion - that you are talking about magic in the sense of Charmed and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and proceed to mock you.

This furthermore isn’t helped by people in the ‘occult community’ who themselves cannot seem to agree what they are tallking about. Which is fine, to a degree, because neither can Discordians about chaos, and they seem to get on with it fine. But when you have Wiccans and Ceremonial Magickiqians rubbing shoulders with people advancing a more believable and approachable theory, you are always going to have some serious problems. Furthermore, some of these people who don’t accept the usual mumbo-jumbo about spirits and demons will then proceed to use badly understood scientific models to try and ‘prove’ their theories, which is pretty much as bad as the imaginary monsters, when confronted by someone who understands the models being discussed.

Now, for the technology example, I don’t buy that at all. Why? The examples we have are of people who are utilizing processes that at least some other people know, and can explain with reference to established natural laws, to make repeatable results. The “can explain” bit is important, because while you could claim all the rest apply to mahadqickians, they fall down on explanations that can be verifiably tested (and often on repeatable results as well). Using a fighter jet is substansially different to evoking Ares, for example.

Again, I’m not down with the “faith” business either. I’ve seen enough fanatics who fervently believe in something, with the sort of faith which you could break rocks on (and trust me, it was tempting to test this). The point is, despite their faith, that alone cannot change anything outside of themselves, and often little inside themselves either, once that state is reached. Its an end state, not a process used to achieve a goal, and I think the consesnus is that magique, whatever it is, is for doing stuff with.

In fact, I was listening to my podcasts I have again last night, and I’m not sure who said this (it may have been Chris Titan on Occulterati, but I’m not sure. It could have been Curcio as well) but they came up with a brilliant explanation. Magick is pulling the wool over your own eyes, and then being able to do that to other people, in order to achieve your goals. Or words to that effect. He was explaining how he got really deeply into biology, Sumerian mythology, psychology, Hermetics etc and how using all these different lenses or ways of looking at the world, allowed him to convince himself first that he could change himself, and thus how he interacted with the world, and then later on being able to cause that change in other people too. Which is a nice blend of the psychological/sociological arguments put forward, and also a nice lock-in with NLP.

Bonsai Ent: “magic is the Will expressing itself against the physical universe and bringing about a change”

“why that is no different to me going downstairs and making a cup of tea!”

“yes”

“accept mine works…”

I could be called a fan of the Derren Brown, or indeed Granny Weatherwax school of magick.
Better known as the “if you want something done, do it” school.

I think the social/psychological magick is closer to theatre than anything else, one could use the drama of magic to bring about psychological changes, make oneself more confident, feel strong, feel attractive… I’ve been trained in drama and we’ve gotten quite good at it. What is the Method but Reality Tunnel shifting at the drop of a hat?

My only criticism here, is why call it “magic”. Again, it seems to me sticking to the aesthetic, it is just role-playing and escapism.

Nothing inherently wrong with it, I just don’t buy it.

Ratatosk: The difference that I’ve found exists in the idea that we’re dealing with different models. When I’m looking at information using a scientific model, I use the terms appropriate for a scientific model. When I’m playing in a philosophical model, I use the terms appropriate for that model. When I put on a Christian hat, I use the terms used by people who live in that model of reality. When I play with ‘magic’ I use the terms that are used in that model.

Just as an earlier post misused the scientific quantum model, some people misuse the ‘magic’ model. Some people think that quantum physics means that there is no reality until we look for it, that doesn’t mean that there’s a problem with QP, only that there’s a confusion in their ability to read the map. The same seems true for ‘magic’. In every model of magic that I’ve studied, (Wicca, Thelema, Chaos Magic) there’s no discussion of rabbits in hats, or sleight of hand… no fireballs getting thrown from bellies, no flying etc etc etc, in almost all of the cases, we’re dealing with metaphors which are more aligned with psychological manipulation, rather than manipulation of the physical world.

That’s the reason Crowley added the ‘k’ to magic, to separate the ’stage magic’ from the stuff of consciousness change.

We could discuss magic in entirely non-magical terms. I have a great book which is called Mind Hacks, put out by O’Reilly and Assoc. It has experiments and exercises that nearly mirror those in Liber Null and Liber Kaos and The Book of Atem (all chaos magic books). However, (and this depends entirely on one’s opinion of how neurology works) it may be much easier to effect changes through some metaphors than others (considering that no matter how direct Mind Hacks tries to be, its still using metaphors).

For me, I play in magic sometimes, not because I think it works, but because I like to examine reality through as many tunnels as possible. It seems to me that we can spend our life looking for THE ANSWER (which may or may not be possible), we might spend our life in one single model/map and experience only the stuff that gets labeled on that map, we could spend our lives asleep like the poor pinks and norms… not even realizing that they’re looking at the menu, rather than the meal. For me, I choose to try as many metaphoric restaurants as possible… I don’t mind if the Menu is in French, German, English or glowing on a big board behind the cashier. I don’t think it will get me closer to THE ANSWER… but I do enjoy getting to experience the different perceptions and ideas used by different people. Further, it means that if I’m talking to a Christian, I can use words, terms… the model, that they are familiar with and sometimes describe new concepts to them using their own map. When I’m talking to an Atheist, the same ma be true. When talking with a Chaos Magician, I can use their metaphors and when talking to a Wiccan, Buddhist or Hindu, I can use their metaphors.

I don’t necessarily understand all of those maps as well as a person who spends their entire life looking only at a single model… but I’m ok with that.

The Menu is not the meal. Magic, based on my experiences, references a set of symbols on a particular map. You can choose to not use the map, but that doesn’t invalidate the map or its symbols.

Bantu: To avoid any impressions of fawning…that’s neither here nor there.

I think you’ve [LMNO] explained your positions with clarity enough for a layperson to understand and with little room for dispute. Cains last post especially was the icing on the cake.

I’ve enjoyed reading the all varying opinions and ideas here, cheers to Cyd too.

I’ve come late to the realization of the elements of Fundamentalism in prevalent in Paganish belief systems. l always thought that one could hold certain ‘beliefs’ for what they were and then recognize what is measurable scientific theory with ease in these systems. I’ve seen and experienced some pretty incredible things I don’t yet understand or can find explaination for. That doesn’t make it manisfestations of supernatural energies. In my ‘beliefs’ the supernatural is somewhat antithetical.

And UPG covers my ass. Okthxby.

LMNO: Well, one thing I found intersting in this thread was that no one said, “ok, big guy, so what do you think is going on here?”

There was pretty much just an assumption I was like James Randi, and thought it was all bullshit.

So, here goes:

I believe the universe is wierder than science can currently account for. The history of science has shown itself to be islands of knowledge in a sea of ignorance.

I believe that things happen that cannot be explained easily.

I think most forms of “magic” are combinations of yogic practices, NLP, self-hypnosis, the placebo effect, psychology, metaphor, reconstruction of the BIP, self-delusion, and unadultarated bullshit.

I think that people who try to describe the wierd shit in the universe using scientific terms are deluding themselves.

I think the people who “know” that their magic practices create weird shit are making false correspondences.

I think that some people who are adept at certain kinds of magical practices have a greater tendencey to either belive their own metaphors, or see the BIP more clearly.

I think more research is needed in all areas of study that lend themselves to scientific research.

I think people who use fairy tales to make themselves feel better aren’t necessarily bad, but also make boring dinner guests.

Cydira: I’m pretty sure that the explanation of why magic works is grounded in a combination of psychology and physics, though I haven’t been able to establish what precisely is the reason. I’ve been trying, but no real success.

I’d like to see one of two things happen. Either a new term needs to be invented to describe the phenomena that results from successful magic, thus leaving the term magic to retain it’s socially accepted connotations, or a change in the connotations associated with the term magic. As I highly doubt the second will happen (despite the flailing and other efforts of the Pagan sub-culture among English speakers), I think a new term is needed.

I just don’t know what the hell to call this.

The people who oppose the use of the scientific method and decry it as opposed to occult studies are fools, in my opinion. The scientific method is a highly valuable tool that we use on a regular basis. The process of developing a theory, testing it, and evaluating the results is done daily in a wide array of arenas. Sure, we’re not dressed in lab coats, running tests on chemicals, recording the results, and submitting papers detailing our findings to any of the scientific publications. But we use this process to evaluate why something isn’t working, how to navigate problems that arise in the workplace, and address other quandaries that come up in our lives.

It also forgets something important. The use of the scientific method is a continuation of a long line of occultists’s work. It just happens to be accepted into mainstream society and the places where it is used are no longer hidden under a veil of secrecy. One can still argue that rituals are still used in scientific study today. The donning of protective gear and the setup of laboratory equipment is no less an act of ritual then putting on robes and lighting candles. The distinction made is that the use of protective gear and setting up laboratory equipment is viewed as practical and necessary by the general public, where as the rituals of religion and occult studies are viewed as superstition by the general public.

All of that said, I’ve got to say that there’s alot of crackpot occultists out there who irritate the hell out of me. I can’t stand the people who lie and insist that one must blindly accept the lie. Outrageous claims are hard to accept, but arguments can be presented to persuade some one. To refuse to attempt that and expect blind faith, it’s just something that stinks of a con being pulled on me and I will actively resist it.