Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)

Expand Messages
  • Jake Stratton-Kent
    Goetic Gallery - Sympathia draw the character on an emerald or ruby, for they have a great sympathy with the spirits, especially those of the Sun, who are the
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 5, 2014
      Goetic Gallery - Sympathia


      'draw the character on an emerald or ruby, for they have a great
      sympathy with the spirits, especially those of the Sun, who are the
      wisest, and are friendlier and better than the others.'

      The True Grimoire



      The 'Doctrine of Sympathy' originates in the sublime conception of the
      universe as a single living body, of which God is the soul. Sympathia
      or 'Sympathy' is a central and all pervading concept of Western magic.
      Its origins may lay in the religious magic of Egypt, and related ideas
      are present in magical thought the world over. This aside the term
      itself, and its systemised development in all branches of Western
      magic, is a product of Greek thought. It was first enunciated by
      Parmenides, it was the core idea in the thought of Empedocles, it was
      central to the Stoic school, and was enthusiastically adopted and
      developed by the Neoplatonists. Its adoption by the latter school is
      of particular importance for Western magic. In the Neoplatonist
      development of Theurgy, which profoundly influenced Medieval and
      Renaissance occult thought, Sympathia was central both theoretically
      and practically.



      The Universe, according to this idea, was one thing. The Greeks
      recognised that this being was composed of parts, be they termed
      elements, principles, or 'roots'. All things within the One were
      composed of differing combinations of these roots, be they numbers,
      gods, animals, plants or stones, places, climates or anything
      whatever, their essence was defined by these inherent qualities. In
      addition, to the degree in which any two things resembled each other
      through shared qualities, they were attractive to one another,
      regardless of their relative positions in space. This is stated
      clearly by both Plotinus and Iamblichus: 'The Universe is one being,
      its parts separated by space, but through possession of one nature are
      drawn rapidly together'. Such parts may be superior or inferior to
      each other in nature, without in the least diminishing their
      attraction for one another.



      This conception was originally based on the four elements and the
      principles of attraction and repulsion, dependent on like and unlike
      qualities. These four elements of course are not to be confused with
      what moderns understand by the terms. They are more akin to the states
      of matter recognised in modern science. Thus the Earth of the Greeks
      resembles not soil or sand merely, but what scientists call solids;
      Water signifies qualities inherent in what scientists term liquids,
      Air gases and Fire plasmas. The elements thus represented the
      subjective experience of a given thing, its characteristics and
      behaviour, rather than its objective chemical constituents.



      As time went on this classification was systemised: Fire possessed the
      qualities of heat and dryness, Earth possessed dryness and cold, Water
      cold and moisture, Air moisture and heat. Fire therefore shared the
      quality of heat with air, and the quality of dryness with earth.
      Through the lack of any shared quality fire was antipathetic to water.



      On this basis the offerings and ceremonies of religion and magic, as
      understood by the Greeks, included materials conducive to attracting
      the gods or other beings it was desired to invoke: 'Theurgic art,
      knowing this and having discovered appropriate vessels conforming to
      the distinct natures of different gods, often connects together
      stones, herbs, animals, aromatics, and other sacred, perfect and
      godlike substances of similar kind; then from these it produces a
      complete and pure receptacle. For it is not proper to despise all
      matter, but only that foreign in nature to the deities invoked'.



      This application of Sympathia, as interpreted by the Neoplatonists,
      gave Western magic the 'Doctrine of Correspondences'. The original
      elemental classification also underwent modification and development.
      In this development the original elemental classification was extended
      and diversified into planetary and zodiacal symbols. Nevertheless the
      elemental symbolism is the basis of the more complex classifications,
      which can generally be reduced into these simpler terms.



      The development of the original concept of Sympathy is also central to
      Astrological thinking. Planets and Signs possess affinities and
      antipathies towards one another. The manner in which any configuration
      manifests itself is determined through these inter-relations. The laws
      of sympathy and antipathy are the basis of the concept of harmonious
      or disharmonious combinations in Astrology. The particular nature of
      the planets and elements involved in any combination determines the
      nature or the outcome.



      That Astrology should be a sophisticated extrapolation of the concept
      of divine sympathy is hardly surprising. Despite the presence of
      star-lore in earlier cultures, Babylonian and Egyptian in particular,
      Astrology is a Hellenistic system. The star-lore of the other cultures
      was not used to produce astrological charts for individuals, nor was
      the Zodiac as we know it a feature of any of them. In almost every
      essential the system of Astrology known in the West is a product of
      the Hellenistic era. The degree to which Astrology underlies the whole
      conception of magic in the grimoires cannot be easily over-emphasised.
      Astrology is the most irrefutable example of the central place of
      Greek thought - rather than Judaeo-Christian theology - in the system
      of the grimoires.



      Jake

      http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
    • HUMBERTO MAGGI
      ... addition, to the degree in which any two things resembled each other ... clearly by both Plotinus and Iamblichus: The Universe is one being, ... This
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 5, 2014

        >>>The 'Doctrine of Sympathy' originates in the sublime conception of the
        universe as a single living body, of which God is the soul.>>>

        Here we go. Magic being explaneid after a very particular religious view of reality.

        >>>or 'Sympathy' is a central and all pervading concept of Western magic.
        Its origins may lay in the religious magic of Egypt, and related ideas
        are present in magical thought the world over. This aside the term
        itself, and its systemised development in all branches of Western
        magic, is a product of Greek thought. It was first enunciated by
        Parmenides, it was the core idea in the thought of Empedocles, it was
        central to the Stoic school, and was enthusiastically adopted and
        developed by the Neoplatonists. Its adoption by the latter school is
        of particular importance for Western magic. In the Neoplatonist
        development of Theurgy, which profoundly influenced Medieval and
        Renaissance occult thought, Sympathia was central both theoretically
        and practically.>>


        Historic resume of the use of the term. Very elengantly written and good to define sympathy as very specific cultural term.

        >>The Universe, according to this idea, was one thing. The Greeks
        recognised that this being was composed of parts, be they termed
        elements, principles, or 'roots'. All things within the One were
        composed of differing combinations of these roots, be they numbers,
        gods, animals, plants or stones, places, climates or anything
        whatever, their essence was defined by these inherent qualities.


        Nothing wrong here, in my opinion. Very possibly science will come to the same conclusions at some point.


        >> In addition, to the degree in which any two things resembled each other
        through shared qualities, they were attractive to one another,
        regardless of their relative positions in space. >>>

        Now the concept turns to what I think is a extrapolation leading to superstition. So, if anything happens to any of the hundreds of pictures of myself I took during my life, will it affect me just because of the resemblance?

        Or maybe I took the "attractive" thing wrongly. Is it attractive in a similar sense to the magnet, or attractive in a psychological sense?


        >>This is stated clearly by both Plotinus and Iamblichus: 'The Universe is one being,
        its parts separated by space, but through possession of one nature are
        drawn rapidly together'. Such parts may be superior or inferior to
        each other in nature, without in the least diminishing their
        attraction for one another.>>

        Their concept of universe was of a limited creation of crystaline spheres around the earth. The concept of sympathetic attraction drawning things rapidly together apply to someone writing my name in an planet located in another galaxy?

        >> This conception was originally based on the four elements and the
        principles of attraction and repulsion, dependent on like and unlike
        qualities. >>>>>

        What bring us to the outdated concept argument, as the four elements are just a description of the way we perceive matter/energy.


        <<<These four elements of course are not to be confused with
        what moderns understand by the terms. They are more akin to the states
        of matter recognised in modern science. >>>>


        Hehehe, I just wrote that above.


        >>>Thus the Earth of the Greeks
        resembles not soil or sand merely, but what scientists call solids;
        Water signifies qualities inherent in what scientists term liquids,
        Air gases and Fire plasmas. The elements thus represented the
        subjective experience of a given thing, its characteristics and
        behaviour, rather than its objective chemical constituents.>>>


        There are reasons why I love Jake work so much.


        >>>This application of Sympathia, as interpreted by the Neoplatonists,
        gave Western magic the 'Doctrine of Correspondences'. The original
        elemental classification also underwent modification and development.
        In this development the original elemental classification was extended
        and diversified into planetary and zodiacal symbols. Nevertheless the
        elemental symbolism is the basis of the more complex classifications,
        which can generally be reduced into these simpler terms.>>>

        One more very good description of the evolution of the term


        >>>The development of the original concept of Sympathy is also central to
        Astrological thinking. Planets and Signs possess affinities and
        antipathies towards one another. The manner in which any configuration
        manifests itself is determined through these inter-relations. The laws
        of sympathy and antipathy are the basis of the concept of harmonious
        or disharmonious combinations in Astrology. The particular nature of
        the planets and elements involved in any combination determines the
        nature or the outcome.<<<

        See? I very good definiton of the term, including the history of its development.

        This is something we can work with.

        Now, the million dollars question to Jake: does it explain all magical phenomena?

        HM


      • Jake Stratton-Kent
        General theories and disciplines are often able to withstand revision. Crystalline spheres aren t really an essential of any magical theory, including
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 5, 2014
          General theories and disciplines are often able to withstand revision.

          Crystalline spheres aren't really an essential of any magical theory,
          including astrology past and present. We might as well chuck physics
          out the window because it once thought the universe was full of
          'Ether'.

          On 5 March 2014 14:59, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:
          > See? I very good definiton of the term, including the history of its development.
          >
          > This is something we can work with.
          >
          > Now, the million dollars question to Jake: does it explain all magical phenomena?


          Words are not things, but without words (or language) thinking about
          things is next to impossible.

          What we often seem to forget is that Science deals with the measurable
          and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown.

          Just the same, the arguments of Instrumentalism do apply very well to
          magical theory (it doesn't have to be true to be effective). I'd argue
          that Sympathy is a good working theory, but far from infallible. So it
          is a language - a map, not the territory. That territory remains
          unknowable in many respects, but magic provides handles for engaging
          with it.

          As currently understood Correspondences stem from a major revision of
          archaic magic in the Great Synthesis period. It was and is a good
          frame for retaining much older material even if and though that
          material was not based on the same models and premises.

          Example, the proposition that 'Cats are lunar' may not have been based
          on the theory implied in that revision. Correspondences are how we
          refer to the proposition *now*. That the categories of lunar and
          feline work well together may be based on something else entirely,
          what matters is that our linkage of them feels right and produces some
          kind of result, interior or exterior, 'scientific' or 'poetic'.

          It is 'true' in some sense distinct from Science (wherein, since 'cats
          don't live on the Moon', we reach only a dead end).

          Magicians engage with this truth through an intervening 'language' of
          great sophistication, which I'd be very reluctant to abandon even
          though my sympathies are more with the archaic strata beneath them. A
          more scientific language would lose contact not only with more recent
          tradition, but the primal and archaic levels successfully retained for
          us by the Synthesis.

          Is Sympathia an explanation applicable in scientific terms? No.
          Is it a basis of a language so far proven irreplaceable? Most certainly.

          Magically speaking, a powerful language with limitations is better
          than being unable to approach the Mystery at all. Even if, when we are
          immersed in the Mystery temporarily, we are aware that this language
          is only a half way house to the incommunicable.
        • HUMBERTO MAGGI
          I agree with almost everything you said. ... and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown. But then we would need to go into a very long debate
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 5, 2014
            I agree with almost everything you said.

            Of course, my entire approach to magic is against the following sentence:


            >>What we often seem to forget is that Science deals with the measurable
            and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown.>>


            But then we would need to go into a very long debate about the meaning of the words "science" and "magic."

            Of course, the entire reason of this tread was the definition of magic. So far not achieved.

            HM


            De: Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...>
            Para: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
            Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 5 de Março de 2014 16:35
            Assunto: Re: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)

             
            General theories and disciplines are often able to withstand revision.

            Crystalline spheres aren't really an essential of any magical theory,
            including astrology past and present. We might as well chuck physics
            out the window because it once thought the universe was full of
            'Ether'.

            On 5 March 2014 14:59, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:
            > See? I very good definiton of the term, including the history of its development.
            >
            > This is something we can work with.
            >
            > Now, the million dollars question to Jake: does it explain all magical phenomena?

            Words are not things, but without words (or language) thinking about
            things is next to impossible.

            What we often seem to forget is that Science deals with the measurable
            and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown.

            Just the same, the arguments of Instrumentalism do apply very well to
            magical theory (it doesn't have to be true to be effective). I'd argue
            that Sympathy is a good working theory, but far from infallible. So it
            is a language - a map, not the territory. That territory remains
            unknowable in many respects, but magic provides handles for engaging
            with it.

            As currently understood Correspondences stem from a major revision of
            archaic magic in the Great Synthesis period. It was and is a good
            frame for retaining much older material even if and though that
            material was not based on the same models and premises.

            Example, the proposition that 'Cats are lunar' may not have been based
            on the theory implied in that revision. Correspondences are how we
            refer to the proposition *now*. That the categories of lunar and
            feline work well together may be based on something else entirely,
            what matters is that our linkage of them feels right and produces some
            kind of result, interior or exterior, 'scientific' or 'poetic'.

            It is 'true' in some sense distinct from Science (wherein, since 'cats
            don't live on the Moon', we reach only a dead end).

            Magicians engage with this truth through an intervening 'language' of
            great sophistication, which I'd be very reluctant to abandon even
            though my sympathies are more with the archaic strata beneath them. A
            more scientific language would lose contact not only with more recent
            tradition, but the primal and archaic levels successfully retained for
            us by the Synthesis.

            Is Sympathia an explanation applicable in scientific terms? No.
            Is it a basis of a language so far proven irreplaceable? Most certainly.

            Magically speaking, a powerful language with limitations is better
            than being unable to approach the Mystery at all. Even if, when we are
            immersed in the Mystery temporarily, we are aware that this language
            is only a half way house to the incommunicable.


          • Nick
            I believe that since the beginning magic and science where for the most part interchangeable it hasn t been until recent times that the science side gained
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 5, 2014
              I believe that since the beginning magic and science where for the most part interchangeable it hasn't been until recent times that the science side gained ground by a religion based conglomerate of peoples. Magic studies and is a science, science studies, varifies (quantum physics for example) and performs magic. 

              Sent from my iPad

              On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:53 AM, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:

               

              I agree with almost everything you said.

              Of course, my entire approach to magic is against the following sentence:


              >>What we often seem to forget is that Science deals with the measurable
              and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown.>>


              But then we would need to go into a very long debate about the meaninghat  of the words "science" and "magic."

              Of course, the entire reason of this tread was the definition of magic. So far not achieved.

              HM


              De: Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...>
              Para: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
              Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 5 de Março de 2014 16:35
              Assunto: Re: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)

               
              General theories and disciplines are often able to withstand revision.

              Crystalline spheres aren't really an essential of any magical theory,
              including astrology past and present. We might as well chuck physics
              out the window because it once thought the universe was full of
              'Ether'.

              On 5 March 2014 14:59, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:
              > See? I very good definiton of the term, including the history of its development.
              >
              > This is something we can work with.
              >
              > Now, the million dollars question to Jake: does it explain all magical phenomena?

              Words are not things, but without words (or language) thinking about
              things is next to impossible.

              What we often seem to forget is that Science deals with the measurable
              and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown.

              Just the same, the arguments of Instrumentalism do apply very well to
              magical theory (it doesn't have to be true to be effective). I'd argue
              that Sympathy is a good working theory, but far from infallible. So it
              is a language - a map, not the territory. That territory remains
              unknowable in many respects, but magic provides handles for engaging
              with it.

              As currently understood Correspondences stem from a major revision of
              archaic magic in the Great Synthesis period. It was and is a good
              frame for retaining much older material even if and though that
              material was not based on the same models and premises.

              Example, the proposition that 'Cats are lunar' may not have been based
              on the theory implied in that revision. Correspondences are how we
              refer to the proposition *now*. That the categories of lunar and
              feline work well together may be based on something else entirely,
              what matters is that our linkage of them feels right and produces some
              kind of result, interior or exterior, 'scientific' or 'poetic'.

              It is 'true' in some sense distinct from Science (wherein, since 'cats
              don't live on the Moon', we reach only a dead end).

              Magicians engage with this truth through an intervening 'language' of
              great sophistication, which I'd be very reluctant to abandon even
              though my sympathies are more with the archaic strata beneath them. A
              more scientific language would lose contact not only with more recent
              tradition, but the primal and archaic levels successfully retained for
              us by the Synthesis.

              Is Sympathia an explanation applicable in scientific terms? No.
              Is it a basis of a language so far proven irreplaceable? Most certainly.

              Magically speaking, a powerful language with limitations is better
              than being unable to approach the Mystery at all. Even if, when we are
              immersed in the Mystery temporarily, we are aware that this language
              is only a half way house to the incommunicable.


            • Jake Stratton-Kent
              ... couldn t possibly be your approach that is at fault? If indeed it is an approach, rather than an idea you have which neither helps nor hinders your magic.
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 5, 2014
                On 5 March 2014 15:53, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:
                > I agree with almost everything you said.
                >
                > Of course, my entire approach to magic is against the following sentence:
                >
                >
                > >>What we often seem to forget is that Science deals with the measurable
                > and known, Magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown.>>

                couldn't possibly be your approach that is at fault? If indeed it is
                an approach, rather than an idea you have which neither helps nor
                hinders your magic.

                The principle factor underlying magic is concern regarding the
                Afterlife, and three theories regarding this may be detected in most
                if not all forms of magic known to Western civilisation (Catholic,
                Platonic and Spiritist).

                Of course not all things magic gets involved in involve this, but the
                same may be said of things religion gets involved with; nevertheless
                it is the principle factor even so. ("Religion and Magic both stock
                Salvation, they just don't sell much of it")

                >
                > But then we would need to go into a very long debate about the meaning of the words "science" and "magic."

                yes, and to do either would involve Philosophy, even though neither
                necessarily concern themselves with it.

                > Of course, the entire reason of this tread was the definition of magic. So far not achieved.

                most unfair, at least four theories/definitions have been summarised
                in the foregoing discussion. They aren't scientific definitions, but
                why should they be?

                Regarding the Afterlife/Spirit World, Theories 1,2 & 3 - as opposed to
                the concern that produces them - may be wrong but workable. However,
                Science does not enter into or engage with this field at all. We may
                then justifiably complain that Science *can't* define or justify
                itself in magical terms. However, Art, Science, Magic and Religion
                typically work in their own terms rather than each others. Art no
                longer has to justify itself religiously; I for one have no interest
                in justifying Magic in Scientific terms either.

                ALWays

                Jake
              • HUMBERTO MAGGI
                ... an approach, rather than an idea you have which neither helps nor hinders your magic Of course it is an approach. It is called the “scientific
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 6, 2014
                  >>couldn't possibly be your approach that is at fault? If indeed it is
                  an approach, rather than an idea you have which neither helps nor
                  hinders your magic>>


                  Of course it is an approach. It is called the “scientific approach.” To say that “magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown,” this is an idea that not only does not help, but in fact hinders the development of magic.


                  It is in the same line of old theological “arguments,” when divines were forced to confront the inherent contradictions and paradoxes of their religion: it is a “mystery” that cannot be understood because god is “immeasurable and unknown.”


                  How the scientific approach did help my magic? By allowing me to question and try and test the techniques inherited from tradition, what allowed me to develop practices more simple and yet effective.


                  I think it is very beautiful to try to follow as close as possible all the techniques we find in the grimoires, but I asked myself once: what if we did not have the grimoires? What if they had being all destroyed? Would that mean the end of magic?


                  The answer is: of course not. The potential to enjoy magical phenomena is inherent in us. The contact with spirits can happen at any time without the help of books, and can be developed with discipline and attention.


                  On the other hand, how many errors of conception and practice were written down into the grimoires? Did their writers really achieve great success with the methods they wrote down?


                  >>Crystalline spheres aren't really an essential of any magical theory, including astrology past and present. We might as well chuck physics out the window because it once thought the universe was full of 'Ether'.>>


                  The point here is that physics tested the idea of the ether, found it wrong, and developed. Magic is not developing because we are not testing its theoretical foundations.


                  >>The principle factor underlying magic is concern regarding the Afterlife […] Of course not all things magic gets involved in involve this>>


                  Everything in the past was strongly connected to the “afterlife,” so the involvement of magic with the concept maybe was not essential, but accidental. And you yourself wrote that “of course not all things magic gets involved in involve this.”


                  I do not think that considerations with the “afterlife” are necessary to magic, as there are many other possible formulations that can explain it, and what I say is that we must test them all. This is the “approach” I have being talking about.


                  >>> most unfair, at least four theories/definitions have been summarised
                  in the foregoing discussion. They aren't scientific definitions, but
                  why should they be?>>


                  They did not need to be scientific, but they should be academic defensible as that was what Kathy needed. More than that, they should be at least properly enunciated.

                  Let’s see what we got so far, if my memory helps:

                  1. The redundant “magic = sympathy = magic” definition.
                  2. The poetic eulogy of magic as being a religious experience
                  3. The “magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown”


                  I am not sure if these are the theories you identified, when you say “theories 1, 2 & 3”?


                  >>However, Science does not enter into or engage with this field at all. We may
                  then justifiably complain that Science *can't* define or justify itself in magical terms. >>


                  It does. One good example, the perception of a spiritual presence is being associated with a specific part of the brain activity through brain scanning.


                  If the spirits exist, and if we can perceive them, science can find a way to register them other than our neurological response. There are plenty of possibilities.

                  Possibilities denied by ideas that do not help but hinder, but opened by the scientific approach.


                  >>I for one have no interest in justifying Magic in Scientific terms either.>>


                  It is not about justifying, it is about discovering better methods, enabling us to develop Magic beyond the current status.


                  It is funny to see that Buddhism is in a strong cooperation with neuroscience today, I guess this openness come from its different religious foundation.


                  So I ask how much the religious foundation of Western magic is responsible for its underdevelopment.

                  HM
                  HM
                • Jake Stratton-Kent
                  ... please supply some details of how you employ it. I ve seen many claims of scientific method in magic, none of them reliable. ... not so, I suggest you
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 6, 2014
                    On 6 March 2014 08:05, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >>>couldn't possibly be your approach that is at fault? If indeed it is
                    > an approach, rather than an idea you have which neither helps nor
                    > hinders your magic>>
                    >
                    >
                    > Of course it is an approach. It is called the "scientific approach."

                    please supply some details of how you employ it. I've seen many claims
                    of scientific method in magic, none of them reliable.

                    >To say that "magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown," this is an idea that not only does not help, but in fact hinders the development of magic.
                    >
                    > It is in the same line of old theological "arguments," when divines were forced to confront the inherent contradictions and paradoxes of their religion: it is a "mystery" that cannot be understood because god is "immeasurable and unknown."

                    not so, I suggest you examine the definition of Instrumentality (a
                    Philosophy of Science), and the implied acceptance that the model is
                    not or need not be true so much as effective in practice.

                    this is not a stance you will find in the Science vs Theology debates.
                    I am not invoking Faith, I don't do Belief. I am acknowledging
                    historical facts History is amenable to Scientific Method, and I
                    frequently argue for its utility in magic - other sciences are less
                    useful, except in providing technology.

                    Science can not adjudicate in whether an item is a work of Art either,
                    but it can provide tools, materials and inspiration. I suggest the
                    case is similar in magic.

                    > How the scientific approach did help my magic? By allowing me to question and try and test the techniques inherited from tradition, what allowed me to develop practices more simple and yet effective.

                    Magic is quite capable of doing that by itself, given an inquiring
                    mind and a willingness to experiment. Perhaps this is an example of
                    Science providing Inspiration, rather than of Applied Science as such.

                    Virtually the first question I ask a spirit is if simpler and shorter
                    methods may be employed in future - this is utilitarian magic, no
                    science required.


                    > I think it is very beautiful to try to follow as close as possible all the techniques we find in the grimoires, but I asked myself once: what if we did not have the grimoires? What if they had being all destroyed? Would that mean the end of magic?

                    it would be the end of a scientific examination of the grimoires! The
                    grimoires are not the be all and end all, they are a historical
                    resource. Use of evidence ('the hard headed materialistic science of
                    history') requires a case to examine!

                    Without the grimoires magicians with similar interests would for
                    instance research other cultures.

                    > The answer is: of course not. The potential to enjoy magical phenomena is inherent in us. The contact with spirits can happen at any time without the help of books, and can be developed with discipline and attention.

                    this sounds more like spiritualism crossed with yoga than science. The
                    potential to enjoy art is also inherent, we don't need critics to tell
                    us it is Art (only that it is fashionable and a good investment, or
                    otherwise). Science does not enter into this.

                    > On the other hand, how many errors of conception and practice were written down into the grimoires?
                    >
                    >Did their writers really achieve great success with the methods they wrote down?

                    that rather depends what they were trying to achieve - and whether the
                    material is always to be taken literally. There is some evidence that
                    the grimoires were designed to be read in more than one way (including
                    fantasy). Again, science is useful to examine the evidence - and to a
                    degree interpret it - but it is not necessarily useful in execution.

                    >
                    >>>Crystalline spheres aren't really an essential of any magical theory, including astrology past and present. We might as well chuck physics out the window because it once thought the universe was full of 'Ether'.>>
                    >
                    > The point here is that physics tested the idea of the ether, found it wrong, and developed. Magic is not developing because we are not testing its theoretical foundations.

                    I have some sympathy with your point here, but no modern magicians are
                    basing their work on the Crystalline Spheres. This suggests
                    development is taking place, not in a lab but by the emergence of a
                    new consensus based on available facts. I can't see how you can object
                    to that.

                    Some magicians are limiting themselves to the traditional Seven
                    Planets, but in back of this is not a rejection of Science, but an
                    acknowledgement of the utility of the categorisation that follows from
                    'seven-ness'. This case has been argued intelligently online many
                    times. There is of course an equal case for working with an enlarged
                    Astrological base including Outer Planets as well as Fixed Stars not
                    known or used in the Arab and Hellenistic systems etc.

                    What is not essential is a scientific Imprimatur endorsing the
                    methodology or the model - some astrologers speak of 'rays' etc, but
                    whether or not these exist or have an effect is arguable, and I
                    suggest unimportant. I've seen too many 'scientific' objections to
                    Astrology that reflect merely prejudice or a priori assumptions:

                    some argue for instance that Sidereal Astrology is more scientific
                    because the Constellations have moved, but Tropical Astrology is not
                    based on the Constellations but Signs, and the Signs are legitimate
                    mathematical conventions within which the constellations may be
                    incorporated very readily.

                    Such an objection therefore is not Science, it merely borrows
                    assumptions from pop-scientism

                    >
                    >>>The principle factor underlying magic is concern regarding the Afterlife [...] Of course not all things magic gets involved in involve this>>
                    >
                    >
                    > Everything in the past was strongly connected to the "afterlife," so the involvement of magic with the concept maybe was not essential, but accidental. And you yourself wrote that "of course not all things magic gets involved in involve this."

                    I suggest you employ the hard headed materialistic science of history
                    to examine my claim. It is not accidental, 'everything involved the
                    afterlife' because Magic was the basis of their understanding.

                    (Magic is the mother of Art, Religion and Science, in approximately
                    that order).

                    The Spirit World aka Afterlife (for want of a better word, such as
                    Eschatology) is the ultimate ground base of magical modelling of the
                    world or cosmos. You might as well say that the stars are an
                    accidental component of Astronomy.

                    You are rejecting. a Scientific proposition based on examination of
                    historical evidence. Yet History is the best place to begin employing
                    Science in magic.

                    > I do not think that considerations with the "afterlife" are necessary to magic, as there are many other possible formulations that can explain it, and what I say is that we must test them all. This is the "approach" I have being talking about.

                    name one of these possible formulations.
                    And I'm not talking about 'monsters from the Id'!

                    If we reject the historical evidence we diminish rather than expand
                    our understanding. Scientific History is also a lot cheaper and more
                    accessible than the kind of scientific hardware you mention later, and
                    more appropriate besides.

                    >
                    >>>> most unfair, at least four theories/definitions have been summarised
                    > in the foregoing discussion. They aren't scientific definitions, but
                    > why should they be?>>
                    >
                    >
                    > They did not need to be scientific, but they should be academic defensible as that was what Kathy needed. More than that, they should be at least properly enunciated.

                    most of them are academically defensible as historical propositions.

                    > Let's see what we got so far, if my memory helps:
                    >
                    > 1. The redundant "magic = sympathy = magic" definition.

                    there is no redundancy involved; Sympathia is the theory, Magic is the practice.

                    > 2. The poetic eulogy of magic as being a religious experience

                    the eschatological content of this idea is evidence for one of the
                    definitions I have offered. It does not depend on a particular
                    religious background, religion is secondary.

                    > 3. The "magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown"

                    this was not offered as a definition. It is a statement or proposition
                    concerning the sphere of operations. It happens to be accurate,
                    regardless of whether it suits scientific prejudice. Unlike Religion,
                    magic does not defend itself on the basis of faith. It is not rigid in
                    how it *defines* the unknown, it accepts that there are limits to the
                    known, and operates beyond those limits. That is an entirely different
                    case.

                    Your memory is clearly at fault, since the following have all been mentioned:

                    # the science and art of causing change in conformity with will

                    # participation in the processes of change (whether a Science or Art,
                    or another form of methodology is secondary)

                    # practical eschatology

                    # evocation of spirits in order to produce results

                    # (applied) Sympathia

                    rejecting these out of hand is not scientific. As many magicians do
                    not grasp these definitions or their significance engaging
                    scientifically with history is a better course.

                    >>>However, Science does not enter into or engage with this field at all. We may
                    > then justifiably complain that Science *can't* define or justify itself in magical terms. >>
                    >
                    >
                    > It does. One good example, the perception of a spiritual presence is being associated with a specific part of the brain activity through brain scanning.
                    >
                    > If the spirits exist, and if we can perceive them, science can find a way to register them other than our neurological response. There are plenty of possibilities.

                    Neurological changes do not prove that spirits exist, only that we
                    respond to an event that can be understood as contact with a 'spirit'.

                    Again I point you to the importance of Instrumentalism. I neither
                    believe or disbelieve in spirits - I have compared approaches that
                    include and exclude them, both in theory and in practice. The
                    conclusion reached is that including them works better. This is not a
                    parlour game however, *including* spirits requires wholehearted work
                    and communicating with them *regardless* of their true nature.

                    This is 'Instrumentalism' in action - the theory does not have to be
                    true, may be incapable of proof either way, but certain things follow
                    from behaving as if it is.

                    The Collective Unconscious or other theoretical concepts (such as
                    Levi's 'Astral Light') *might* explain how and why spirits - real or
                    not - are able to interact with us and be perceived and communicated
                    with. Science may not be able to demonstrate the reality of these
                    models (which are secondary) but the results following working with
                    them are more significant than those which don't.

                    Name a scientist who has isolated the Collective Unconscious in a lab!
                    Name a Science that might be capable of it; point me to the apparatus!
                    :D

                    > Possibilities denied by ideas that do not help but hinder, but opened by the scientific approach.

                    Often Scientific ideas themselves do not help but can hinder. I prefer
                    to pursue spirit magic rather than waste my time being plugged into a
                    neurological device that proves nothing I do not already know.

                    >>>I for one have no interest in justifying Magic in Scientific terms either.>>
                    >
                    >
                    > It is not about justifying, it is about discovering better methods, enabling us to develop Magic beyond the current status.

                    the most 'scientific' schools of magic are not the most productive.
                    They are not the most scientific either. When Traditionalist magicians
                    employ History scientifically they produce a lot more data than
                    supposedly pro-science Thelemic or Chaos schools, not to mention
                    parapsychology and other *dead ends*

                    > It is funny to see that Buddhism is in a strong cooperation with neuroscience today, I guess this openness come from its different religious foundation.

                    a yogi plugged into a machine proves that there are changes in the
                    mind when he enters the Eight High Trances etc. I'm sure this is not
                    unique to Buddhism, it is nothing to do with proving Buddhism is
                    right, only that the yogis aren't faking.

                    There would be neurological changes during a proper evocation too.
                    This would prove the magician was actually doing something rather than
                    lying and imposing on the credulous (as 'rationalist' prejudice is
                    prone to assert).

                    These results would not prove Yoga or Evocation redundant - nor would
                    they prove the existence of Nirvana or of spirits. They would prove
                    that the methodology based on this existence as a premise are
                    effective in some way. Bringing us back to Instrumentalism as a valid
                    basis for working within a tradition.

                    > So I ask how much the religious foundation of Western magic is responsible for its underdevelopment.

                    not very much.

                    neglect is far more responsible, and scientism is a major cause of that neglect.

                    Magic precedes Religion, and generally speaking has only borrowed
                    religious trappings (not that they are inessential *in some form*) or
                    adapted its own pre-existent models to conform with the prevailing
                    orthodoxy.

                    For example, Magic *began* with the premise of a spirit world, which
                    religion co-opted. Magicians then used the religious forms of their
                    own idea. This doesn't make the idea redundant, since the
                    *application* of the methodology is inherent to magic, and can be
                    shown to produce neurological changes etc.

                    Magic ultimately depends on the idea of a spirit world (to which
                    eschatology is utterly integral). This can be proven historically, and
                    that is scientific method. No particular religious schema is
                    essential, they are secondary.

                    It is therefore in the sphere of traditional magic that science has
                    proven most useful - science therefore has to adapt to what magic is,
                    rather than vice versa, before it has any major role to play.

                    ALWays

                    Jake

                    http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
                  • Nick Farrell
                    I will stick my oar in here scientific method is an interesting one, it is more of an ideal than anything else. Basically you have an idea, you test to see if
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 6, 2014
                      I will stick my oar in here scientific method is an interesting one, it is
                      more of an ideal than anything else. Basically you have an idea, you test
                      to see if it works and you repeat it. However it is a problem in that the
                      standard of proof has to be completely different from what is acceptable to
                      modern science. In fact I would say it has to be proof to the extent that it
                      is acceptable to the magician.

                      However it is just as unreliable as the "historical method." This states
                      that because a manual or a scroll exists over a period of time that it is
                      more accurate or reliable than something that was dreamed up by a more
                      modern source. The fact is that we don't know what status some of this stuff
                      had historically. The chap that wrote the Egyptian Papyrus might have been
                      the same sort of person who today would peddle Chrystal Unicorn snake oil
                      while other more serious magicians who actually got results were not
                      recorded. Also if I write a book based on my experiences, and they work, why
                      should it not have the same status as someone who wrote pot-boiling grimoire
                      in the 17th century to make a quick buck and was put together from bits of
                      other systems and never tried?



                      Nick Farrell





                      From: solomonic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:solomonic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      Of Jake Stratton-Kent
                      Sent: 06 March 2014 11:48
                      To: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)





                      On 6 March 2014 08:05, HUMBERTO MAGGI <aldajjal@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >>>couldn't possibly be your approach that is at fault? If indeed it is
                      > an approach, rather than an idea you have which neither helps nor
                      > hinders your magic>>
                      >
                      >
                      > Of course it is an approach. It is called the "scientific approach."

                      please supply some details of how you employ it. I've seen many claims
                      of scientific method in magic, none of them reliable.

                      >To say that "magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown," this is an
                      idea that not only does not help, but in fact hinders the development of
                      magic.
                      >
                      > It is in the same line of old theological "arguments," when divines were
                      forced to confront the inherent contradictions and paradoxes of their
                      religion: it is a "mystery" that cannot be understood because god is
                      "immeasurable and unknown."

                      not so, I suggest you examine the definition of Instrumentality (a
                      Philosophy of Science), and the implied acceptance that the model is
                      not or need not be true so much as effective in practice.

                      this is not a stance you will find in the Science vs Theology debates.
                      I am not invoking Faith, I don't do Belief. I am acknowledging
                      historical facts History is amenable to Scientific Method, and I
                      frequently argue for its utility in magic - other sciences are less
                      useful, except in providing technology.

                      Science can not adjudicate in whether an item is a work of Art either,
                      but it can provide tools, materials and inspiration. I suggest the
                      case is similar in magic.

                      > How the scientific approach did help my magic? By allowing me to question
                      and try and test the techniques inherited from tradition, what allowed me to
                      develop practices more simple and yet effective.

                      Magic is quite capable of doing that by itself, given an inquiring
                      mind and a willingness to experiment. Perhaps this is an example of
                      Science providing Inspiration, rather than of Applied Science as such.

                      Virtually the first question I ask a spirit is if simpler and shorter
                      methods may be employed in future - this is utilitarian magic, no
                      science required.

                      > I think it is very beautiful to try to follow as close as possible all the
                      techniques we find in the grimoires, but I asked myself once: what if we did
                      not have the grimoires? What if they had being all destroyed? Would that
                      mean the end of magic?

                      it would be the end of a scientific examination of the grimoires! The
                      grimoires are not the be all and end all, they are a historical
                      resource. Use of evidence ('the hard headed materialistic science of
                      history') requires a case to examine!

                      Without the grimoires magicians with similar interests would for
                      instance research other cultures.

                      > The answer is: of course not. The potential to enjoy magical phenomena is
                      inherent in us. The contact with spirits can happen at any time without the
                      help of books, and can be developed with discipline and attention.

                      this sounds more like spiritualism crossed with yoga than science. The
                      potential to enjoy art is also inherent, we don't need critics to tell
                      us it is Art (only that it is fashionable and a good investment, or
                      otherwise). Science does not enter into this.

                      > On the other hand, how many errors of conception and practice were written
                      down into the grimoires?
                      >
                      >Did their writers really achieve great success with the methods they wrote
                      down?

                      that rather depends what they were trying to achieve - and whether the
                      material is always to be taken literally. There is some evidence that
                      the grimoires were designed to be read in more than one way (including
                      fantasy). Again, science is useful to examine the evidence - and to a
                      degree interpret it - but it is not necessarily useful in execution.

                      >
                      >>>Crystalline spheres aren't really an essential of any magical theory,
                      including astrology past and present. We might as well chuck physics out the
                      window because it once thought the universe was full of 'Ether'.>>
                      >
                      > The point here is that physics tested the idea of the ether, found it
                      wrong, and developed. Magic is not developing because we are not testing its
                      theoretical foundations.

                      I have some sympathy with your point here, but no modern magicians are
                      basing their work on the Crystalline Spheres. This suggests
                      development is taking place, not in a lab but by the emergence of a
                      new consensus based on available facts. I can't see how you can object
                      to that.

                      Some magicians are limiting themselves to the traditional Seven
                      Planets, but in back of this is not a rejection of Science, but an
                      acknowledgement of the utility of the categorisation that follows from
                      'seven-ness'. This case has been argued intelligently online many
                      times. There is of course an equal case for working with an enlarged
                      Astrological base including Outer Planets as well as Fixed Stars not
                      known or used in the Arab and Hellenistic systems etc.

                      What is not essential is a scientific Imprimatur endorsing the
                      methodology or the model - some astrologers speak of 'rays' etc, but
                      whether or not these exist or have an effect is arguable, and I
                      suggest unimportant. I've seen too many 'scientific' objections to
                      Astrology that reflect merely prejudice or a priori assumptions:

                      some argue for instance that Sidereal Astrology is more scientific
                      because the Constellations have moved, but Tropical Astrology is not
                      based on the Constellations but Signs, and the Signs are legitimate
                      mathematical conventions within which the constellations may be
                      incorporated very readily.

                      Such an objection therefore is not Science, it merely borrows
                      assumptions from pop-scientism

                      >
                      >>>The principle factor underlying magic is concern regarding the Afterlife
                      [...] Of course not all things magic gets involved in involve this>>
                      >
                      >
                      > Everything in the past was strongly connected to the "afterlife," so the
                      involvement of magic with the concept maybe was not essential, but
                      accidental. And you yourself wrote that "of course not all things magic gets
                      involved in involve this."

                      I suggest you employ the hard headed materialistic science of history
                      to examine my claim. It is not accidental, 'everything involved the
                      afterlife' because Magic was the basis of their understanding.

                      (Magic is the mother of Art, Religion and Science, in approximately
                      that order).

                      The Spirit World aka Afterlife (for want of a better word, such as
                      Eschatology) is the ultimate ground base of magical modelling of the
                      world or cosmos. You might as well say that the stars are an
                      accidental component of Astronomy.

                      You are rejecting. a Scientific proposition based on examination of
                      historical evidence. Yet History is the best place to begin employing
                      Science in magic.

                      > I do not think that considerations with the "afterlife" are necessary to
                      magic, as there are many other possible formulations that can explain it,
                      and what I say is that we must test them all. This is the "approach" I have
                      being talking about.

                      name one of these possible formulations.
                      And I'm not talking about 'monsters from the Id'!

                      If we reject the historical evidence we diminish rather than expand
                      our understanding. Scientific History is also a lot cheaper and more
                      accessible than the kind of scientific hardware you mention later, and
                      more appropriate besides.

                      >
                      >>>> most unfair, at least four theories/definitions have been summarised
                      > in the foregoing discussion. They aren't scientific definitions, but
                      > why should they be?>>
                      >
                      >
                      > They did not need to be scientific, but they should be academic defensible
                      as that was what Kathy needed. More than that, they should be at least
                      properly enunciated.

                      most of them are academically defensible as historical propositions.

                      > Let's see what we got so far, if my memory helps:
                      >
                      > 1. The redundant "magic = sympathy = magic" definition.

                      there is no redundancy involved; Sympathia is the theory, Magic is the
                      practice.

                      > 2. The poetic eulogy of magic as being a religious experience

                      the eschatological content of this idea is evidence for one of the
                      definitions I have offered. It does not depend on a particular
                      religious background, religion is secondary.

                      > 3. The "magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown"

                      this was not offered as a definition. It is a statement or proposition
                      concerning the sphere of operations. It happens to be accurate,
                      regardless of whether it suits scientific prejudice. Unlike Religion,
                      magic does not defend itself on the basis of faith. It is not rigid in
                      how it *defines* the unknown, it accepts that there are limits to the
                      known, and operates beyond those limits. That is an entirely different
                      case.

                      Your memory is clearly at fault, since the following have all been
                      mentioned:

                      # the science and art of causing change in conformity with will

                      # participation in the processes of change (whether a Science or Art,
                      or another form of methodology is secondary)

                      # practical eschatology

                      # evocation of spirits in order to produce results

                      # (applied) Sympathia

                      rejecting these out of hand is not scientific. As many magicians do
                      not grasp these definitions or their significance engaging
                      scientifically with history is a better course.

                      >>>However, Science does not enter into or engage with this field at all. We
                      may
                      > then justifiably complain that Science *can't* define or justify itself in
                      magical terms. >>
                      >
                      >
                      > It does. One good example, the perception of a spiritual presence is being
                      associated with a specific part of the brain activity through brain
                      scanning.
                      >
                      > If the spirits exist, and if we can perceive them, science can find a way
                      to register them other than our neurological response. There are plenty of
                      possibilities.

                      Neurological changes do not prove that spirits exist, only that we
                      respond to an event that can be understood as contact with a 'spirit'.

                      Again I point you to the importance of Instrumentalism. I neither
                      believe or disbelieve in spirits - I have compared approaches that
                      include and exclude them, both in theory and in practice. The
                      conclusion reached is that including them works better. This is not a
                      parlour game however, *including* spirits requires wholehearted work
                      and communicating with them *regardless* of their true nature.

                      This is 'Instrumentalism' in action - the theory does not have to be
                      true, may be incapable of proof either way, but certain things follow
                      from behaving as if it is.

                      The Collective Unconscious or other theoretical concepts (such as
                      Levi's 'Astral Light') *might* explain how and why spirits - real or
                      not - are able to interact with us and be perceived and communicated
                      with. Science may not be able to demonstrate the reality of these
                      models (which are secondary) but the results following working with
                      them are more significant than those which don't.

                      Name a scientist who has isolated the Collective Unconscious in a lab!
                      Name a Science that might be capable of it; point me to the apparatus!
                      :D

                      > Possibilities denied by ideas that do not help but hinder, but opened by
                      the scientific approach.

                      Often Scientific ideas themselves do not help but can hinder. I prefer
                      to pursue spirit magic rather than waste my time being plugged into a
                      neurological device that proves nothing I do not already know.

                      >>>I for one have no interest in justifying Magic in Scientific terms
                      either.>>
                      >
                      >
                      > It is not about justifying, it is about discovering better methods,
                      enabling us to develop Magic beyond the current status.

                      the most 'scientific' schools of magic are not the most productive.
                      They are not the most scientific either. When Traditionalist magicians
                      employ History scientifically they produce a lot more data than
                      supposedly pro-science Thelemic or Chaos schools, not to mention
                      parapsychology and other *dead ends*

                      > It is funny to see that Buddhism is in a strong cooperation with
                      neuroscience today, I guess this openness come from its different religious
                      foundation.

                      a yogi plugged into a machine proves that there are changes in the
                      mind when he enters the Eight High Trances etc. I'm sure this is not
                      unique to Buddhism, it is nothing to do with proving Buddhism is
                      right, only that the yogis aren't faking.

                      There would be neurological changes during a proper evocation too.
                      This would prove the magician was actually doing something rather than
                      lying and imposing on the credulous (as 'rationalist' prejudice is
                      prone to assert).

                      These results would not prove Yoga or Evocation redundant - nor would
                      they prove the existence of Nirvana or of spirits. They would prove
                      that the methodology based on this existence as a premise are
                      effective in some way. Bringing us back to Instrumentalism as a valid
                      basis for working within a tradition.

                      > So I ask how much the religious foundation of Western magic is responsible
                      for its underdevelopment.

                      not very much.

                      neglect is far more responsible, and scientism is a major cause of that
                      neglect.

                      Magic precedes Religion, and generally speaking has only borrowed
                      religious trappings (not that they are inessential *in some form*) or
                      adapted its own pre-existent models to conform with the prevailing
                      orthodoxy.

                      For example, Magic *began* with the premise of a spirit world, which
                      religion co-opted. Magicians then used the religious forms of their
                      own idea. This doesn't make the idea redundant, since the
                      *application* of the methodology is inherent to magic, and can be
                      shown to produce neurological changes etc.

                      Magic ultimately depends on the idea of a spirit world (to which
                      eschatology is utterly integral). This can be proven historically, and
                      that is scientific method. No particular religious schema is
                      essential, they are secondary.

                      It is therefore in the sphere of traditional magic that science has
                      proven most useful - science therefore has to adapt to what magic is,
                      rather than vice versa, before it has any major role to play.

                      ALWays

                      Jake

                      http://www.underworldapothecary.com/





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Aaron H
                      To: solomonic@yahoogroups.com From: aldajjal@yahoo.com Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:05:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia) Of
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 6, 2014



                        To: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
                        From: aldajjal@...
                        Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:05:23 -0800
                        Subject: Re: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)

                         


                        Of course it is an approach. It is called the “scientific approach.” To say that “magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown,” this is an idea that not only does not help, but in fact hinders the development of magic.


                        The problem here is that science as a tool only works in the physical world(particle matter and energy), because it depends upon physics as a constant. So if there were a non-physical realm in which spirits reside, then Science would be a poor tool to test for it. And, to imply that something outside of the known physical world would respond to the same laws of our physics, is a bit of a stretch. Science is only a useful tool in a material universe, that is all.



                        The point here is that physics tested the idea of the ether, found it wrong, and developed. Magic is not developing because we are not testing its theoretical foundations.


                        LOL.  Who is to say the Ether or the crystalline spheres exists in the physical world?


                        I do not think that considerations with the “afterlife” are necessary to magic, as there are many other possible formulations that can explain it, and what I say is that we must test them all. This is the “approach” I have being talking about.

                        So what you are doing is not necessarily testing for the way magic works, but the various sundry methods magic manifests through paradigms? I'm just trying to understand here.

                        They did not need to be scientific, but they should be academic defensible as that was what Kathy needed. More than that, they should be at least properly enunciated.

                        Let’s see what we got so far, if my memory helps:

                        1. The redundant “magic = sympathy = magic” definition.
                        2. The poetic eulogy of magic as being a religious experience
                        3. The “magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown”



                        I'll add my own to the list here.
                        Magic is the process of working with a non-physical world to make changes(spiritual or mundane) in the physical world.

                        It does. One good example, the perception of a spiritual presence is being associated with a specific part of the brain activity through brain scanning.

                        This is the chicken or the egg. Is the brain producing the spiritual experience, or are the electrochemical responses in the brain a physical reaction to a non-physical experience. 

                        If the spirits exist, and if we can perceive them, science can find a way to register them other than our neurological response. There are plenty of possibilities. 


                        I've seen the tests where they try to replicate the experience  of spiritual apparition by stimulating the brain with high power magnets, therefore proving that apparition is completely generated from the brain aka false hallucination.  
                        The stimulation of that part of the brain, producing a pseudo-phantom experience does not negate the actual existence of a spiritual world anymore then pressing on the eye(resulting in perception of lights) negate the existence of light. All this does is result in a materialists agenda. Again refer to my post directly above (chicken or the egg).

                        Possibilities denied by ideas that do not help but hinder, but opened by the scientific approach.

                        >>I for one have no interest in justifying Magic in Scientific terms either.>>


                        It is funny to see that Buddhism is in a strong cooperation with neuroscience today, I guess this openness come from its different religious foundation. 


                        But Buddhism didn't change or evolve their understanding to fit the western world science, it was simply that western world science discovered a truth to what Buddhism has been teaching all along. Given time this might be the same with us. 



                      • Roy
                        ... Agreed totally - the way I think about it is that these four major paradigms of thought, magic, art, religion and science all support one another - in
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 6, 2014
                          On 3/6/2014 4:48 AM, Jake Stratton-Kent wrote:
                          Science can not adjudicate in whether an item is a work of Art either,
                          but it can provide tools, materials and inspiration. I suggest the
                          case is similar in magic.
                          Agreed totally - the way I think about it is that these four major paradigms of thought, magic, art, religion and science all support one another - in other words, I know few magicians, but I can clearly distinguish those who rely on science (theosophists), religion (masonic/medieval etc.), or art (like me) as their primary support structures.

                          The same thing is true of practitioners of any of the four paradigms - there always seems to be one of the three supports that is dominant in their practice; maybe it has to do with psychology and sub-dominant themes in consciousness.

                          It seems to me that whatever view one takes, that acts of magic follow the same pattern: summon power, add intention to the power summoned, and get results (or non-results, or unexpected results - for most of us, power is contained in 'spirit').

                          The ways of doing the first two vary considerably - and BTW - the whole business of planetary rays and things of that nature came from astrologers trying to pass themselves off as scientists of the invisible - they were usually better at conning the wealthy than they were at making predictions, and are the reason that we lost so much of the important connection between astrology and magic.

                          And yeah, definitely, the scheme of the elements, signs and planets are such an incredibly beautiful and tight system when looked at from the standpoint of geometrical numerology that the older stuff, when studied carefully, can perform excellent divinatory operations without the addition of the outer planets, etc. but the messier stuff works well when approached from a philosophically coherent viewpoint.

                          -- 
                          --------------------------------------------
                          Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
                          A: http://five.sentenc.es
                          
                          Roy
                        • HUMBERTO MAGGI
                          Hey, Aaron Thanks for returning to the debate. I am elaborating a more complete answer to what I have being trying to explain on my view on magic, to answer
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 8, 2014
                            Hey, Aaron

                            Thanks for returning to the debate.

                            I am elaborating a more complete answer to what I have being trying to explain on my view on magic, to answer the last email from Jake; I will include some comments to your email on it, so it will facilitate the explanation and save us time.

                            From your email I will elaborate upon:

                            1. "The problem here is that science as a tool only works in the physical world(particle matter and energy), because it depends upon physics as a constant."

                            2. "So what you are doing is not necessarily testing for the way magic works, but the various sundry methods magic manifests through paradigms? I'm just trying to understand here."

                            3. "Magic is the process of working with a non-physical world to make changes(spiritual or mundane) in the physical world."

                            This one is very good to work with, and it was in this direction that I was trying to lead Kathy on her elaboration, when we got entangled in the sympathy debate.

                            4. The neurological experiments.

                            5. "I for one have no interest in justifying Magic in Scientific terms either." As I answered to Jake, for me it is not about justifiying magic (justifying to whom?), but about developing it and, yes, about finding out the truth, which has being my main interested since the beginning.

                            I am so elaborating a more complete description of my views, I just ask some patience until I finished and post.

                            Last but not least, I think it is very exciting being able to discuss the subject with whom I consider the most representative mages of the age, namely you and Jake.

                            A true honor.

                            HM


                            De: Aaron H <enigmius.ah@...>
                            Para: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
                            Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 6 de Março de 2014 15:26
                            Assunto: RE: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)

                             


                            To: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
                            From: aldajjal@...
                            Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:05:23 -0800
                            Subject: Re: [Solomonic] SYMPATHIA (quoted from Geosophia)

                             


                            Of course it is an approach. It is called the “scientific approach.” To say that “magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown,” this is an idea that not only does not help, but in fact hinders the development of magic.


                            The problem here is that science as a tool only works in the physical world(particle matter and energy), because it depends upon physics as a constant. So if there were a non-physical realm in which spirits reside, then Science would be a poor tool to test for it. And, to imply that something outside of the known physical world would respond to the same laws of our physics, is a bit of a stretch. Science is only a useful tool in a material universe, that is all.



                            The point here is that physics tested the idea of the ether, found it wrong, and developed. Magic is not developing because we are not testing its theoretical foundations.


                            LOL.  Who is to say the Ether or the crystalline spheres exists in the physical world?


                            I do not think that considerations with the “afterlife” are necessary to magic, as there are many other possible formulations that can explain it, and what I say is that we must test them all. This is the “approach” I have being talking about.

                            So what you are doing is not necessarily testing for the way magic works, but the various sundry methods magic manifests through paradigms? I'm just trying to understand here.

                            They did not need to be scientific, but they should be academic defensible as that was what Kathy needed. More than that, they should be at least properly enunciated.

                            Let’s see what we got so far, if my memory helps:

                            1. The redundant “magic = sympathy = magic” definition.
                            2. The poetic eulogy of magic as being a religious experience
                            3. The “magic deals with the immeasurable and unknown”



                            I'll add my own to the list here.
                            Magic is the process of working with a non-physical world to make changes(spiritual or mundane) in the physical world.

                            It does. One good example, the perception of a spiritual presence is being associated with a specific part of the brain activity through brain scanning.

                            This is the chicken or the egg. Is the brain producing the spiritual experience, or are the electrochemical responses in the brain a physical reaction to a non-physical experience. 

                            If the spirits exist, and if we can perceive them, science can find a way to register them other than our neurological response. There are plenty of possibilities. 


                            I've seen the tests where they try to replicate the experience  of spiritual apparition by stimulating the brain with high power magnets, therefore proving that apparition is completely generated from the brain aka false hallucination.  
                            The stimulation of that part of the brain, producing a pseudo-phantom experience does not negate the actual existence of a spiritual world anymore then pressing on the eye(resulting in perception of lights) negate the existence of light. All this does is result in a materialists agenda. Again refer to my post directly above (chicken or the egg).

                            Possibilities denied by ideas that do not help but hinder, but opened by the scientific approach.

                            >>I for one have no interest in justifying Magic in Scientific terms either.>>


                            It is funny to see that Buddhism is in a strong cooperation with neuroscience today, I guess this openness come from its different religious foundation. 


                            But Buddhism didn't change or evolve their understanding to fit the western world science, it was simply that western world science discovered a truth to what Buddhism has been teaching all along. Given time this might be the same with us. 





                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.