Is Magickal Work Real?

[Dinmiatus]

@Faustus

One good manhandling by something that you can’t see is usually enough to shake most people out of the whole psychology model of magic.

accurate. though when ya can see what is manhandling you it is both better and worse at the same time

[Faustus]

I’ve had that happen several times in the early years. Never could see them. It was terrifying at the time but afterward it was both fascinating and encouraging. But most people just end up running back to church when it happens to them. No one will ever convince me that magic isn’t real or that spirits are aspects of my personality. I’ve seen too much. Maybe some people need “scientific” sounding theories to at least open them to the possibility that magic can work. To me though, all that is mental masturbation.

[Dinmiatus]

Yeah ive had one with aighash that was nerve racking and then Azazel has popped up to startle me one way or another and drop random knowledge on my skull and yet I’ve never evoked him ritually…

[statuenation]

I read most of this but dont have time to read it all, very fascinating discussion. In relation to dreams, though, I have a theory. I had a pretty sweet diagram drawn up at one point, but alas it was on a phone that is no longer with us. So the theory is that dreams (sleeping dreams) can be wholely mundane, wholly mental, as in zero interaction with anything except your own mind and its musings. They can be wholely spiritual, or astral/4th dimensional/whatever you refer to it as. And they can be any mixture of both (90% influenced by spirit/astral plane, 10% your mind. 50/50. 20/40. Etc)
The mundane dreams are your own mental inventions. Reflections of your experiences, fantasies, etc.
The spiritual dreams can be “divinely” inspired, given to you by some form of astral entity. They could also be your astral body/consciousness traveling about the astral plane, interacting with entities there. Or any other spiritual scenario.
The mixture dreams could be an entity influencing your mental dream. Or it could be taking place in the astral plane, but its still your mental mind (physical mind) interpreting what you see. And any other combination of scenarios.
It gets more complicated but that’s the basic theory. And I wonder if this could be applied to magic as well. You have your full-on spiritual experiences, then you have spiritual entities affecting the physical world, and you have your mental mind affecting the spiritual world, and so on and so forth.

[Warlock]

@Lady_Eva

You had a relationship of intent with it that was subverted by your accident and you most certainly affected a change in that relationship.

But no desire was involved, nor consious intent, which is the point I was addressing.

Sure you did! Your intent and desire was to use the chemical to do enhance your garden; a relationship of intent to the can and its contents. The fact that it was accidently spilled would have brought that relationship into sharp relief by an “oh fuck” moment precipitated by the loss of the use of a tool that you had ready-to-hand.

@Lady_Eva

As for the Divine Paradox; notice that I am not invoking the existence of any supreme being; be it the Abrahmic god, Platonic Demiurge, or flying spaghetti monster.

You do however seem to accept that there is a Mind beyond your conscious mind in which all things are held in some degree of relationship?

“Divine” in this context, as I apologise for not making even clearer, relatres solely to the state of possessing all knbowledge and a lack of preference for any individuated self-perception within it.

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

@Lady_Eva

Just as the victim is far more than the robber;s objectification of him, but he is a product of all the interactions that he has had in the past and is engaged with up until the moment of his death.

Interactions with what?

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

@Lady_Eva

Can Charlie exist when not observed? According to quantum theory he both exists and does not exist at the same time; ala Schrodinger’s cat. It is the act of observation that brings him, and all of us into being.

Which leaves out of course the animal as observer - an acceptable workaround in the thought experiment, not so when you are describing reality.

Charlie your murdered bovine is observing things and capable of a range of reactions, and of various levels of comprehension and emotion, as well.

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.

@Lady_Eva

The path that the light takes is found to be dependent on it’s being observed; the act of observation in the present determines an event that occurred millions of years in the past. This violates temporal causality in a big way, in fact it inverts it.

The question you need to be asking here is whether 1. the light in and of itself is an observer, 2. whether it’s conscious of being such, and 3. whether it has an agenda or some kind of will regarding the route it takes.

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

@Lady_Eva

A mish-mash of Jung and quantum physics are some fairly first-grade newage tropes I’m well familiar with: none of them can unbreak an egg, though it’s highly entertaining.

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.

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

But let’s be clear. I am not offering a psychological argument / explanation for magic; 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. The model permits for “one good manhandling by something that you can’t see” (as Faustus put it).

But he asks an important question; why is theory important for magic. Do we need theory at all? Or is it just “intellectual masturbation”? Perhaps we can broaden the question to include all fields of human endeavour; is theory important to any of it? Is theory important for science? I would argue that absolutely it is; theory gives us a chance to test our ideas against reality. If theory matches up with practical result; then our understanding of the phenomenon at hand, the wider universe and our place in it, is deepened and broadened. In this we have more power over our environment. Theory can then guide practice into future fruitful explorations. 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. It is the predictive and explanatory power of theory that can guide future work in ways not considered before.

[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.

[In_Between_Worlds]

Umm… Loki knocked on my door 3 times when I evoked him the first time. Not like “knock knock knock” kind of 3 times. I mean, knock several times, I checked while my dogs freaked the hell out. Then back to ritual, knock again. I check again (no one outside and I live in nowhere with no neighbors). Finally, back to ritual, knock again. I stop checking. Loki materializes and I begin interacting with him. He makes a joke about the knocking on the walls and the door. Product of my mind?
I mean maybe but my dogs don’t bark at nothing, yet they freaked out the whole time.
Just one of many reasons I think it takes more faith to be a “psychological model” guy than it does to be a “spirits are real” guy. I’ve been choked… choked… choked physically by a spirit. I’ve seen poltergeist shit, beyond synchronicity.

[Zapdubious]

Bravo

It’s reasonable to call philosophy “mental masturbation”. I use that line of thinking to get out of my own head on a regular basis. The cycle of deep thought can eat up mental energy and lead toward apathy.
But
Well formed philosophical expression is excellent mental exercise. Warlock and Lady Eve have both done an excellent job and have gotten a bump of energy that Aristotle calls Eudaimonia.

For a muggle, eudaimonia is a feeling of comfort, confidence, and bliss that comes from achieving personal goals.
Some people call it Karma, and they aren’t wrong.
To a magician, eudaimonia is one’s mind detecting its own power.