Magic: Who thinks they can do it, and why otherwise intelligent people buy it.

[Bu🤠ns]

In my various mind/body experiments and exercises in which I've performed over the years I've found one of the most common obstacles I always seem to fall into is the fact that the me who is attempting to make a change is the same me who needs to be changed.  Sort of a double-bind situation.

I've found that most techniques attempt to try and not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing.  All meditations, rituals and such are traps that if done correctly should cancel themselves out.  IOW, you don't take the raft with you after you cross the river.

I'm currently undertaking the A.'.A.'. curriculum which, although not by my preference or style, does include ritual.   I try to see ritual as moving meditation and to always bring a skeptical EYE to the experience as well as a ton of humor.  I'm a hardcore skeptic despite my trying to be otherwise and as such I find that I don't believe in anything.  I don't think, at this point, that will ever change.  It's really the experience of self analysis in its many forms itself that draws me in.

The so-called 'magic' (awful term nowadays) involved in various experiments isn't in the folklore or non-local sense but rather in various forms of union between the self and environment or the objective and subjective.  The various practices in the curriculum relate to various forms of yoga, i.e. hatha, gnana, bhakti, karma.  and they are designed to reconcile opposites.

I guess what I'm getting at is that my approach to this sort of thing is and has always been try it, see if it does anything and if not dispose of it.  I love working with imagination and creativity and, in a lot of ways, that's exactly what all this brain change business is all about.  

[Salty]

What killed this stuff for me, after years of study, was my belief that my imagination had better uses, like creating fiction. I find that going deeply into fiction allows me to explore any notion or philosophy or magicqual theory to my complete satisfaction.

Ironically, what led me to that point was entering, or toying with, or pretending to live with/learn about Malkuth, the root, the bottom.

Which, also just turned out to be:




EDIT: Blahrg.

[East Coast Hustle]

as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.

also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.

still waiting.

[Kai]

To summarize this thread, while there may be methods and tools useful in aiding metaprogramming, they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it.

[Kai]

And, for the record, simpler is better. Parsimony simply (heh) works better than excess assumptions. A breathing exercise works better than some complex system of Tibetan chants, writing down ones goals in action oriented statements works better than drawing and forgetting a sigil.

And I like simple, because it's easier to keep track of.

[Bu🤠ns]

What killed this stuff for me, after years of study, was my belief that my imagination had better uses, like creating fiction. I find that going deeply into fiction allows me to explore any notion or philosophy or magicqual theory to my complete satisfaction.

Ironically, what led me to that point was entering, or toying with, or pretending to live with/learn about Malkuth, the root, the bottom.

Which, also just turned out to be:




EDIT: Blahrg.

It's interesting...Practically speaking I dont' really see much difference between the creative use of imagination (creating fiction for instance) and what most refer to as magic.  Its just that the term magic, just sucks ass now.

To summarize this thread, while there may be methods and tools useful in aiding metaprogramming, they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it.

I would speculate this to be true (as it's certainly most convenient) but since I've never adorned a silly hat or sigil in the name of metaprogramming so I can't say for sure if this is or isn't true.

What I can say is that processes of self introspection like meditation or mindful activity, raising children, listening to the wife or what have you has benefited me greatly. I can't offer anything but anecdotal evidence of my progress. (Unless of course one would accept my overcoming various personal obstacles as proof.  Although I don't particularly care either way.) 

So if it takes a silly hat or sigil to raise another's self awareness then that's fine with me..but a silly hat is still a silly hat and forgive me if I laugh and if one insists on jacking off to a doodle...just don't get any on my skin.

[P3nT4gR4m]

To summarize this thread, while there may be methods and tools useful in aiding metaprogramming, they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it.

[Faust]

posting THAT in this thread is a terrible idea. It should be affixed to every post in the thread.

[P3nT4gR4m]

posting THAT in this thread is a terrible idea. It should be affixed to every post in the thread.

Exactly.

[Kai]

posting THAT in this thread is a terrible idea. It should be affixed to every post in the thread.

Exactly.

Including yours, pent.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Cute 

The bottom line, tho is that (despite the detractors seeming to think so) there is no proving this endeavor. One way or another. That means you can't disprove it either. Largely due to the fact that what we're dealing with is rooted in the subjective imagination of the people claim to be doing it.

Now the ones who answered the OP and said - yes we use it (or words to that effect) have all, pretty much made it as clear as possible that we're not claiming to be able to manifest physical shit like floating unicorns and turning people into frogs which would be testable. Rather we're claiming it can cause changes in specific mental constructs or states and some people find this interesting to explore.

Unfortunately the detractors are stuck in this "but you can't make a house appear so it's bullshit" tack. Despite having it repeatedly spelled out to you in simple terms. More so you'll throw a whole bunch of utterly bullshit statements like "they do not require layers and layers of external devices to work. In fact, external devices such as mythic thought systems, silly hats and sigils probably hinder progress more than help it." about as if you had the slightest fucking idea what your talking about in the hope that what?

The ones who are actually studying and fucking about with this shit will admit "oh yeah, you obviously sound authoritative - we admit we're wrong and we wont do it again?" All we are essentially describing is things that we do with our imagination. None of it is "needed" and there are a million and one ways to skin the proverbial cat vis a vis any outcome you would like to effect but most people who actually do this shit (as opposed to people who just want to argue it doesn't exist, as if to satisfy some deep rooted denial prerogative) agree that using what is tantamount to a system or language can be helpful/interesting/fun.

I find it fascinating that this issue, above almost any other, always becomes so polarised when no other form of recreation seems to divide us so. When one reads a novel one may see the events described in ones imagination. Prove this? Disprove it? Decry it as ungodly and against science and wave a big pointy stick at it? No. But exploring consciousness, via imagination for anything from personal improvement to shits and giggles? Yeah that'll start a flamewar every time

[Shai Hulud]

Cute  

The bottom line, tho is that (despite the detractors seeming to think so) there is no proving this endeavor. One way or another. That means you can't disprove it either. Largely due to the fact that what we're dealing with is rooted in the subjective imagination of the people claim to be doing it.

Q.E.D.

Im thinking we are going at least the second time around some of the arguments that have already been said.

I still haven't read it but I don't find that surprising considering that we went through the same argument a couple of times since I've been posting.  I don't want to go round and round about this, the kind of magical thinking I'm defending is a fair bit watered down from the sort of "light a candle with your mind" magic this thread was originally intended to mock.  But then again, if you sincerely think you can do that I don't really have a problem with it either.

And, for the record, simpler is better. Parsimony simply (heh) works better than excess assumptions. A breathing exercise works better than some complex system of Tibetan chants, writing down ones goals in action oriented statements works better than drawing and forgetting a sigil.

I agree with you Kai, but there is no objective reason for believing that simpler is better.  It depends on what you mean by "simple."  To a Tibetan, breathing exercises aren't going to help at all, because there is a lifetime of association between enlightenment and complex chants and esoteric mythology.  That's just how Tibetans are.  To a Zen practitioner this is needless, when a simple breathing exercise will do just as well, and in fact all those layers seem like a distraction.  But to a Tibetan that is just as simple as it gets, anything more simple and you lose something vital.

But exploring consciousness, via imagination for anything from personal improvement to shits and giggles? Yeah that'll start a flamewar every time

Was this a flamewar?  I thought this was just par for the course around here.

[Shai Hulud]

as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.

also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.

still waiting.

Ok, Hustle, that was a thoughtful response and I appreciate it.  I can't say that I disagree with you here, superstition can be a very, very destructive thing.  My beef, however, is that I see the same sort of dangerous tendencies present in the scientific/rationalist mindset that is so pervasive today.  I've always been one to defend the underdog. For the vast majority of human history the underdog was reason, but that has switched, and I truly think we're witnessing the same thing with science.  I see people putting way too much faith in the scientific method.  Not that it isn't useful, probably the most useful tool we've got to get near the Truth.  Maybe even very near the Truth.  But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think scientific thinking will get us there any better than magical thinking.  Maybe more useful for whatever our purposes may be, but not objectively better.  Anyway, glad we're talking again, I can never stay mad at somebody with such great taste in avatars.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That people feel the need to say derogatory things about other people's intellectual/spiritual/emotional practices is pathetic, and more a reflection of their own insecurity and grasping need to feel a sense of superiority over others than of anything else.

[Kai]

as for a concise logical argument against the need to use self-deception and trickery to interface with your own mind, I believe that if you read this entire thread you will find that I and several other people have put forth such arguments already, and there are several other threads over the last couple years that have dealt with identical or similar subjects. my inability to continue to lay everything out as a logical argument at this point stems from my frustration and anger at seeing otherwise intelligent and rational people acting as proponents of superstition and needlessly fantastic trappings, a mindset which seems to be dangerous to the overall health of human society when applied on a large scale.

also, Guy, still waiting for a response to this.

still waiting.

Ok, Hustle, that was a thoughtful response and I appreciate it.  I can't say that I disagree with you here, superstition can be a very, very destructive thing.  My beef, however, is that I see the same sort of dangerous tendencies present in the scientific/rationalist mindset that is so pervasive today.  I've always been one to defend the underdog. For the vast majority of human history the underdog was reason, but that has switched, and I truly think we're witnessing the same thing with science.  I see people putting way too much faith in the scientific method.  Not that it isn't useful, probably the most useful tool we've got to get near the Truth.  Maybe even very near the Truth.  But getting at the truth is an infinite regress, and we can never get there, so it's an equally dangerous mistake to think scientific thinking will get us there any better than magical thinking.  Maybe more useful for whatever our purposes may be, but not objectively better.  Anyway, glad we're talking again, I can never stay mad at somebody with such great taste in avatars.

There is absolutely no reason not to have confidence in the scientific method, aka hypothesis testing.  If people misuse a tool out of misunderstanding that is not a fault of the tool. It's pretty damn stupid to blame a knife for a stab wound. Likewise, it's pretty damn stupid to blame the scientific method for people's misunderstanding of such things as hypothesis, falsifiability, experiment, correlation and causation. Not that the human element can ever be removed from the method and render it completely objective (Cf. Karl Popper), but it can be accounted for. Hypotheses can be tested and retested.

Scientific understanding has gotten us pretty far, btw. Where did magical thinking get us? Oh right, the European Dark Ages. Just think if the Library of Alexandria had survived and the Catholic church had not taken over Europe, where would we be today. Exciting, that. Reality is cool enough, special enough, amazing enough without layering on extra bullshit.

To quote:

"To gild refined gold,
To paint the lily,
To pour perfume on the violet,
Is just fucking silly."

----Tim Minchin, Storm

Note, I don't really care what you do in your spare time to fulfill your spiritual practice. I do care you have the wrong idea about science, however, and thats why I felt the need to address your statement. It sounds similar to something Depak Chopra would say, and that's not a compliment.