A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Then why call it magic?  "Mind Hacks" works better. 

Semantics... Mind Hacks works better if we're having a conversation with people that see only the materialist paradigm. Magic works better when talking about the magical paradigm. As I said above, Mind Hacks also doesn't do a great job of producing results because it doesn't take into account the necessary tricks that "magic" has built in through years of trial and error.

We are creatures of imagination... for many people dressing in robes, playing with sigils and chanting provide the right mindset and setting for intentional brain change. Mind Hacks provides technical knowledge, but fails (at least the book I'm referencing here) to produce the mindset and setting which tends to promote this kind of change.

If we stick with hacking for a minute as the illustration....

"Mind Hacks" is like a technical discussion of the most common exploits used when attacking a system.
"Magic" is the process of script writing to exploit a vulnerability. The code may not be as clear and concise as a description in Mind Hacks, but its actual working code.

In the end they're both models of the same thing... One model seems really good at answering the question "What is happening?", the other model seems really good at answering the question "How do I...?"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay. 

But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay. 

But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.

Hackers rely on tools. Sometimes funny clothes or squiggly lines are tools. In the cas eof Magic thats  the "L"; the link between the physical and the subconscious. Some systems don't use physical props and instead use body gestures/positions etc. (Antero Alli's newer books are based entirely on brain change without traditional props, using instead "Paratheatrics" aka method acting to invoke the changes... it still follows Carrolls model, just uses different stuff for the values of G and L.

At its most simplistic, the "props" are acting as visual symbols which are registering with your subconscious. While it may be possible to modify your programming simply by wishing it so... I haven't seen many people do that successfully. Oftentimes, they seem mostly to change their perception of their programming, rather than changing their programing.

I can play in a different worldview without using magic or tools or rituals... but if I want to permanently modify a particular imprint, response etc magic seems to be a useful tool. There are others, Leary's method seems to have some value  as it relies on the same psychology, just different words and the Conscious Distraction is hallucinogens...

But, "To each their own", said the Old Lady as she kissed the cow.

If you are able to successfully modify your imprints, programmed responses etc without any tools, great.

I find that understanding multiple models allows me to pick what I see as the best model for whatever I plan on doing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I have a tool.  It's the 7 pounds of toxic and diseased gray shit between my ears.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I have a tool.  It's the 7 pounds of toxic and diseased gray shit between my ears.

Then by all means have at it! Perhaps you don't need hacks to modify your brain.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I have a tool.  It's the 7 pounds of toxic and diseased gray shit between my ears.

Then by all means have at it! Perhaps you don't need hacks to modify your brain.

No, I let the syphilis do that for me.

[Captain Utopia]

Okay. 

But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.

Hackers rely on tools. Sometimes funny clothes or squiggly lines are tools. In the cas eof Magic thats  the "L"; the link between the physical and the subconscious. Some systems don't use physical props and instead use body gestures/positions etc. (Antero Alli's newer books are based entirely on brain change without traditional props, using instead "Paratheatrics" aka method acting to invoke the changes... it still follows Carrolls model, just uses different stuff for the values of G and L.

At its most simplistic, the "props" are acting as visual symbols which are registering with your subconscious. While it may be possible to modify your programming simply by wishing it so... I haven't seen many people do that successfully. Oftentimes, they seem mostly to change their perception of their programming, rather than changing their programing.

I can play in a different worldview without using magic or tools or rituals... but if I want to permanently modify a particular imprint, response etc magic seems to be a useful tool. There are others, Leary's method seems to have some value  as it relies on the same psychology, just different words and the Conscious Distraction is hallucinogens...

But, "To each their own", said the Old Lady as she kissed the cow.

If you are able to successfully modify your imprints, programmed responses etc without any tools, great.

I find that understanding multiple models allows me to pick what I see as the best model for whatever I plan on doing.

I don't mean to be picky - but isn't there an inherent danger that the model you select will change your perception of your programming, rather than your actual programming? Since that is the path of least resistance. But then - how do you escape that - somehow (?!) apply a form of statistical analysis to what can be reasonably stated to provide results and what doesn't?

Or do self-delusional wizards simply procreate less?

[Template]

Yeah, it's called insanity and obsession and stuff.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay.  

But if you have to dress up in funny clothes and draw squiggly lines to step into - or act on - another worldview, then I'd have to say that you're relying on mental crutches.

Hackers rely on tools. Sometimes funny clothes or squiggly lines are tools. In the cas eof Magic thats  the "L"; the link between the physical and the subconscious. Some systems don't use physical props and instead use body gestures/positions etc. (Antero Alli's newer books are based entirely on brain change without traditional props, using instead "Paratheatrics" aka method acting to invoke the changes... it still follows Carrolls model, just uses different stuff for the values of G and L.

At its most simplistic, the "props" are acting as visual symbols which are registering with your subconscious. While it may be possible to modify your programming simply by wishing it so... I haven't seen many people do that successfully. Oftentimes, they seem mostly to change their perception of their programming, rather than changing their programing.

I can play in a different worldview without using magic or tools or rituals... but if I want to permanently modify a particular imprint, response etc magic seems to be a useful tool. There are others, Leary's method seems to have some value  as it relies on the same psychology, just different words and the Conscious Distraction is hallucinogens...

But, "To each their own", said the Old Lady as she kissed the cow.

If you are able to successfully modify your imprints, programmed responses etc without any tools, great.

I find that understanding multiple models allows me to pick what I see as the best model for whatever I plan on doing.

I don't mean to be picky - but isn't there an inherent danger that the model you select will change your perception of your programming, rather than your actual programming? Since that is the path of least resistance. But then - how do you escape that - somehow (?!) apply a form of statistical analysis to what can be reasonably stated to provide results and what doesn't?

"... if you go into that realm without the sword of reason, you will lose your mind, but at the same time, if you take only the sword of reason without the cup of sympathy, you will lose your heart. Even more remarkably, if you approach without the wand of intuition, you can stand at the door for decades never realizing you have arrived. You might think you are just waiting for a bus, or wandering from room to room looking for your cigarettes, watching a TV show, or reading a cryptic and ambiguous book. Chapel Perilous is tricky that way."

Any model can be confused with reality. People eat the Menu all the time. Some Wiccans eat the menu. Some Thelemics eat the menu. Some Atheists eat the menu. Some people reject the menu because it has pictures of food instead of actual food on it... perhaps they see the menu as a crutch.

Peter Carroll wisely said "Never give a sword to a man that can't dance. Never give a wand to a man that can't deal with reality."

Getting confused happens, confusing the map for the territory happens. For me, personally, that's why I try to maintain Model Agnosticism, I should be able to play with all the models, without "believing" any of them to be true. Results are the measurement of success. Moderl Agnosticism is the tool I use to examine the "results" critically.

Getting trapped forever in Chapel Perilous, or coming out crazy is always a risk.

[Captain Utopia]

If the opinion of others is worth less to you than your own, then it doesn't matter whether you get trapped forever in Chapel Perilous. So are there any external mechanisms which can shed additional light on the matter? Preferably without falling into the secondary trap of a group being held hostage to the delusions of its most vocal members?

To be clearer - I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think it's the best solution we currently have, but I still hold out hope we'll stumble across a better one someday.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Never before has so much jargon been used to convey so little information.

(Apologies to Winston Churchill)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If the opinion of others is worth less to you than your own, then it doesn't matter whether you get trapped forever in Chapel Perilous.

Based on my understanding of Chapel Perilous, I would disagree... could you expound on this further?

So are there any external mechanisms which can shed additional light on the matter? Preferably without falling into the secondary trap of a group being held hostage to the delusions of its most vocal members?

There is no system yet devised that I am aware of which can avoid human delusion and True Belief. I find that sort of intelligence seems to be the responsibility of the individual... even systems of No Belief, like RAW's views and ideas, or simply the lack of belief in a God can turn into groups of sheep held hostage by the loudest bleating.

To be clearer - I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think it's the best solution we currently have, but I still hold out hope we'll stumble across a better one someday.

Maybe, but a model or map can't replace actual sense. Without sense, an individual will get trapped in any map, funny clothes or not.

Never before has so much jargon been used to convey so little information.

(Apologies to Winston Churchill)

A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

[Kai]

Then why call it magic?  "Mind Hacks" works better. 

Semantics... Mind Hacks works better if we're having a conversation with people that see only the materialist paradigm. Magic works better when talking about the magical paradigm. As I said above, Mind Hacks also doesn't do a great job of producing results because it doesn't take into account the necessary tricks that "magic" has built in through years of trial and error.

We are creatures of imagination... for many people dressing in robes, playing with sigils and chanting provide the right mindset and setting for intentional brain change. Mind Hacks provides technical knowledge, but fails (at least the book I'm referencing here) to produce the mindset and setting which tends to promote this kind of change.

If we stick with hacking for a minute as the illustration....

"Mind Hacks" is like a technical discussion of the most common exploits used when attacking a system.
"Magic" is the process of script writing to exploit a vulnerability. The code may not be as clear and concise as a description in Mind Hacks, but its actual working code.

In the end they're both models of the same thing... One model seems really good at answering the question "What is happening?", the other model seems really good at answering the question "How do I...?"

Or I could just understand the concept of mind hacks ("what is happening") and make up my own personal bullshit system to implement ("how do I..") instead of relying on other people's bullshit.

Of course, somebody is going to come along and say "why reinvent the wheel?" And the answer is simple: If the whole thing works partially on belief, then I'm only going to be able to believe my OWN bullshit, and certainly not yours. Plus, my bullshit is less filthy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Never before has so much jargon been used to convey so little information.

(Apologies to Winston Churchill)

A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

I wouldn't know, because I am not the wisest man...but what I DO know is that the more jargon you need to describe your idea, the less valid it probably is.  That's how MBAs survive, incidentally.  By speaking a different language, so everyone thinks they know what they're talking about.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Then why call it magic?  "Mind Hacks" works better. 

Semantics... Mind Hacks works better if we're having a conversation with people that see only the materialist paradigm. Magic works better when talking about the magical paradigm. As I said above, Mind Hacks also doesn't do a great job of producing results because it doesn't take into account the necessary tricks that "magic" has built in through years of trial and error.

We are creatures of imagination... for many people dressing in robes, playing with sigils and chanting provide the right mindset and setting for intentional brain change. Mind Hacks provides technical knowledge, but fails (at least the book I'm referencing here) to produce the mindset and setting which tends to promote this kind of change.

If we stick with hacking for a minute as the illustration....

"Mind Hacks" is like a technical discussion of the most common exploits used when attacking a system.
"Magic" is the process of script writing to exploit a vulnerability. The code may not be as clear and concise as a description in Mind Hacks, but its actual working code.

In the end they're both models of the same thing... One model seems really good at answering the question "What is happening?", the other model seems really good at answering the question "How do I...?"

Or I could just understand the concept of mind hacks ("what is happening") and make up my own personal bullshit system to implement ("how do I..") instead of relying on other people's bullshit.

Of course, somebody is going to come along and say "why reinvent the wheel?" And the answer is simple: If the whole thing works partially on belief, then I'm only going to be able to believe my OWN bullshit, and certainly not yours. Plus, my bullshit is less filthy.

This is the correct Magic Motorcycle.

I don't do Crowley's rituals, I don't have his background, his psychology or the social reality that he lived in... His specific rituals, then appear less useful to me... However, like I said earlier, its similar to reading through older scripts and tools that exploited computer code in the past, the specific incarnation might not work, but the principles can be applied.

Each of the authors I've spoken of have their own independent system of Magic. They all have their own terms, their own symbols, their own metaphors... Farber sets almost everything within memetics, Crowley used the spirituality movements of his time, Antero bases his work on Leary's model and his distilation of "ritual" across many different systems. Peter Carroll was one of the first "Chaos magicians".

Much like Kai's point, I don't simply use one of their preexisting systems, but I do look at all of them and steal what appears useful to me, modify what appears modifiable to me and make shit up wholesale.