More UNITED than we realize!
role for scepticism
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Griffith on -
Don't all rush at once...
I'm just assuming we all need to find a balance between being too open-minded and too closed-minded. How do you do it?
-
Permalink Reply by John Michael Greer on -
I know I'm jumping into the discussion late -- page proofs on a forthcoming book had to get done -- but I wanted to respond to the original question.
As far as I can tell, there's no easy touchstone. The art of magic, in particular, has been used so comprehensively as a dumping ground for wish-fulfillment fantasies and emotional projections, positive and negative, that it's almost impossible to trace the signal behind all that noise. Ultimately personal experience may be the best we've got -- but even then it's unfortunately true that not everyone who talks about their magical exploits tells the unvarnished truth...
What I've found in my own magical work over the last thirty years, though, is that Dion Fortune's definition of magic -- "the art and science of causing change in consciousness in accordance with will" -- makes a better predictor of what will work and what won't than any of the others I've encountered. Magic seems to be able to change anything that depends on consciousness -- your consciousness, other peoples' consciousness, even the consciousness of nonhuman life forms. On the other hand, I've never seen magic by itself successfully make physical things happen, and I've never seen it violate the normally accepted laws of nature. If somebody came to me and told me that they can do one or more of these latter things, I'd have my doubts until and unless they were willing to demonstrate it.
The same rule applies to other methods of practice -- for example, I know divination works, because I've had information I couldn't possibly have known in advance show up all the time in geomancy readings, and had its accuracy proved thereafter. I also know many other people who've had similar experiences, so that one's probably safe.
On the other hand, when something's failed many, many times, and there are good explanations for that failure, I generally don't accept claims that it's succeeded unless solid proof is forthcoming. Perpetual motion machines (aka zero point energy, over-unity energy, etc.) are the classic example. Those have been failing experimental tests since the first one was invented in ancient India, and there are very good reasons -- magical as well as practical -- why the law of the conservation of energy works. My take, therefore, is that this stuff doesn't work; anybody who wants to change my mind simply has to hand me a working machine and let me run some tests on it.
Once again, though, there's no sure touchstone -- but some background in what's flopped in the past, and an eye to the motives that lead people to claim the untrue, are usually good places to start. This may sound overly cynical, but after 30 years in the occult scene I've seen a lot of snake oil being sold.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Griffith on
-
Wise words, John. Nothing there I'd disagree with.
-
Permalink Reply by Vanese Va Voom on -
Ahh my love
Are you trying to tell me something LOL!!
I think a good dose is very useful.
I think I might prefer the work "discrimination" and or "discernment" but I do not fear the need for proof for a lot of things.
The only tricky thing is when you get into the are of gnosis.
By definition it is impossible to communicate to others things that only you know - and some of those are the very best things to know.
It is interesting because Bill posted a GREAT movie about The Ancient Mysteries and Modern Free Masonary and in it the gentleman explains better than I was able to the idea of Initiation. Initiation is something you experience, not learn, and thus it is impossible to communicate the experience in a way that a skeptic, or anyone who has not experienced it, has any hope of relating too. He used the idea of a lemon. If you have never tasted one - how do you explain that in a sense that someone can FULLY appreciate.
How do I draw the line? Intuition, Study, Research, and Intuition - yep a double dose.
It feels good in my heart. It resonates with Truth.
It is not full proof : )
There are so many things I KNOW to be true, but have no way to prove or measure.
I invite people to share the experience, but I will not pick a fight over something I cannot win.
Now my love you are MUCH more of a skeptic than I - so how do you draw the line?
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Griffith on
-
Not sure if I'm a sceptic or not - just trying to stay sane!
Quite agree that certain experiences are impossible to communicate convincingly, but in other cases I think the real problem is that the experience might be unrepeatable to order and linked to specific personalities.
For example A and B can often communicate telepathically, but not reliably or predictably, and never with C or D.
A magazine article with contributions from Susan Blackmore got me thinking about this.
-
Permalink Reply by David Williams on -
I took the time to learn the Scientific Method, and apply that to my work. that's my balance. I postulate, then come up with a theory, then research and experiment to prove or disprove. the risk is getting too attached to an outcome and being blind to what the Data is saying.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Griffith on
-
I agree that getting attached to an outcome is a major peril, David.
I think there are separate problems with identifying the status of the data, but I'm all for some healthy detachment - absolutely.
-
Permalink Reply by BillVee on -
Applying the scientific method is really the wise thing to do, but it does limit you in terms of measuring the subjective, which is anything mind-related. Susan Blakemore has indeed done a lot of work in the field of para-psychology, and she finally left it all together, saying it was all "unprovable", which is what other scientists have been saying for years.
I listened to an interesting podcast from Deo's Shadow (still available on iTunes if you look for it, it's the next to last episode of their run as podcasters). They did a Pagan podcast, and in this particular episode he goes into detail about how he has pretty much discounted all "spooky action at a distance" type belief and just accepts magic as an elegant form of psycho-therapy. I would say I'm pretty close to that definition as well, although I think the best part of all would be the group experience and getting to know other people who are interested. Having the experience of the mysteries and participating in a mystery play, all that stuff. I really don't take the supernatural stuff too seriously, because if you do that you end up going down a really slippery path of superstitious beliefs and behaviors.
The Tarot is my favorite form of self-development within the modern mystery school teachings, and not for it's fortune-telling but for it's symbolic and pathworking potential. I do sort of hold out a little but of hope that quantum physics just "might" play a small role in which card is "randomly" drawn in a reading based on focused concentration, but it really doesn't matter if it is having an effect or not, to me. I'm just relating the symbols to aspects of my own personal life and situation - I don't have to believe those cards were pulled just for me. Some people do - and I'm not going to tell them they are wrong - but for me it really doesn't matter, I'll still get something from a reading or pathworking anyway. Make sense?
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Griffith on
-
Sounds astute, BJV. Actually, I have a slightly more woo-woo take on what is happening in a Tarot reading than yours, but I think yours would work fine in supporting a good reading.
-
Permalink Reply by Vanese Va Voom on
-
To all the boys with their shiny rules
Is there a place for belief, or faith, or knowing something to be true EVEN if you have not scientifically evaluated it. Can you loose the gift of the insight or revelation because science requires you to re-create the experiment just so you / someone else can believe?
One of the most influential moments in my life I could not recreate if I so chose ( I have tried LOL!)
There is now way to measure it
No way to communicate it in a meaningful way
BUT you are here in this salon ( to some measure) BECAUSE of that experience and the knowing that resulted.....
Not very scientific but very wonderful......
Perhaps science only is necessary when there is a need to prove?
Do not get me wrong... i LOVE science - I was "the science girl at school"! And I particularly love when science validates my "knowing" LOL!!! And then I am no longer crazy....
I guess in my life there is room for both! And yours?
-
Permalink Reply by Nathan 32° on -
Real truth is truth. Truth is indisputable. If you know it to be truth in your heart is that not all the proof you need? Seems to me that this is a common theme in the occult. Without the ability to believe and make a leap of faith to some extent it would be hard to experiment in the occult at all. You have to be able to believe that many of the results of magic are an effect from your will without proof. Things that could be written off as coincidence become results of your actions, for example. If magic could be proven beyond any shadow of doubt it would be accepted science.
As for faith and belief, the only faith you need is in yourself. If you have that then you will know that what you believe is truth if you believe it to be.
Also reality is fairly subjective and somewhat personal. If it is real and profound to you it has effected your world view and become a part of your reality. Manifested by your will in a manner of speaking. If it is real in your reality it is as real as anything that an individual perceive to be reality.
Scientific process defiantly has it's place in the occult but I think it is used as more of a tool by which we increase our faith in what we are doing and out belief in ourselves. Build the "magical ego" as it were. Result and belief in the self to exact change by will is the life blood of a successful magician. Scientific process allows us to see result and there by improves that magical ego.
I don't think every result or magical event has to be put through scientific process in order to be valid but it absolutely has it's uses.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Griffith on
-
I agree, Nathan, that a lot of the problem is deciding what would count as proof.
I'm glad you think our rules are shiny, Vanese! Sounds nice! I don't want to make lots of rules - just think about the cultural divide a bit and why it's there.
© 2012 Created by Vanese Va Voom.
Powered by
