Is Magickal Work Real?

[Lady_Eva]

@Warlock

Such a concept is not necessary for the model of dependent co-arising.

The dependency co-arises within a web of mental connections, of perception, and of the meanings attached to that perception at levels from instinctual through emotional, intellectual, and spiritual; the term “Divine” is merely a label to denote that which accurately perceives itself as all dependent and perceptive forms without identifying strongly with any one of them.

This percpeption can be arrived at intellectually and often is; only when experienced can it be truly understood, and only when the Divine Paradox is also understood can it be used to provide a model for LHP magick, and creating effective change within the world.

@Warlock

“Interactions” meaning, in this context, his relationships past and present.

Charlie’s relationships with what?

I am making the point that minds can exist and perceive without you present.

@Warlock

I never denied that Charlie could act as his own observer; on the contrary his observer status was

confirmed when I noted that in our relationship his observation of me brought me into being in the act of dependent co-arising.

Which then nullifies using the thought experiment Schrödinger’s cat to refer to any living being, with regards to that living being’s state of being alive/un-alive at the same time, provided not observed.

@Warlock

I can’t comment on the degree of consciousness of a photon. I don’t think anybody can in an evidence based way.

So, again, using gravitational lensing and the observer effect upon light to refer to the effects of observation on a living being or entity in the past is nullified. Apples and oranges.

@Warlock

Jung was an earlier part of our conversation when I offered a non-literal interpretation of your dream; Jungian psychology does not influence the model we are discussing now which actually has its base, not only in quantum mechanics (perhaps at a less descriptive level than what I was employing as a research chemist but valid nonetheless), Heideggerian phenomenological ontology and Buddhist ontology.

It’s a common model used to try and talk people out of thinking magick is real.

It notably fails when put to the test, as indeed the man himself seems to have observed, per the quote above.

@Warlock

On a more humorous note; the probabilistic model of reality that quantum mechanics describes allows for the possibility of your egg unbreaking

Quantum mechanics is not physical mechanics.

I’m sure you comprehend this, but this is why eggs don’t randomly unbreak on the reg, and the observer effect doesn’t measurably alter things that occur above that scale.

@Warlock

instead I am arguing for a model that breaks down the artificial divisions of the subjective and objective that not only offers an explanatory mechanism for magic but is much wider in its explanatory power and scope.

We already have one that works, and which is far simpler to use:

The Kybalion

I have a feeling that in trying to reinvent the wheel here, you’ll end up with a circular thing that revolves on an axis and which provides smoother motion than dragging a cart on its shafts…

@Warlock

It is the predictive and explanatory power of theory that can guide future work in ways not considered before.

Indeed, I love a bit of theory and found that exploring this stuff along with the concepts in the Kybalion gave me a useful idea for ritual work, which has proved successful for myself and others.

So no need to apologise, it can be a fun experiment.

@Warlock

The discovery of Neptune is case in point; Newtonian mechanics predicted the existence and position of Neptune (calculated by Urbain Le Verrier) before it was actually observed by telescope; the calculations acting as a guide for the observing astronomers). Not bad for a mental ejaculation.

As can the 7 Principles provided above, which not only cover the mundane aspects of Neptune’s discovery, but also, why it happened when it did, and how to factor that into astrology, as well as astronomy.