From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magical Power(book)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <83950124@otter.hpl.hp.com>, cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low) writes...
>Peggy Brown writes:
> 
>>If you say its a large can of worms then why do you have such a 
>>firm opinion about whether or not unknown causal events are 
>>involved in "everyday" magic(k)?
>>
>>Its not at all clear on what your opinions are based.  No need to be 
>>rational, logical or consistent here; I'm not a stickler for 
>>these.  If its intuition that's OK too. 
> 
>You've lost me. From time to time I like to think things through in public
>by posting to the net; I find that trying to articulate things I don't

[stuff deleted]
>I don't know how to answer your question. Firstly, I'm not sure what it
>means, and secondly, even if I make a guess, I haven't a clue what to say.
>So much for my firm opinions. For many years I struggled to create a
>unified view about how I thought about the world, and how I felt about
>the world, and for that matter, the things I actually did in the world. I think
[stuff deleted]
>and unified view; the inside of my head is more like the aftermath of the
>30 Year's War than the New Jerusalem. The lion has yet to lie down with the
>chicken. In any case, there is a sense of identity which runs deeper than any of
>the above, and giving up was less an admission of failure, and more a
>recognition that there was a better way to keep the show on the road.
> 
>In the context of your question, I don't know what my firm opinions are. This
>isn't a cheap rhetorical device to avoid your question.
> 
>Colin 


Colin,

Your response I find very amusing, especially the part about the 
lion laying down with the chicken.

The reason I asked the question is because 1.) You expressed a 
*very* definite opinion that acquisition of the powerbook was 
without a doubt magick.  This implies you have a theory of 
causality to back it up.  Then you came out with 2.) that causality 
is a large can of worms.  

I did not understand how you could have 1.) and not 2.) to back it up.  
(Of course, if you had come up with a theory about causality I would 
have thought it silly, because no one has one yet that is not based on 
just opinion and a little scientific hocuspocus thrown in to make 
it look good.)  If you're just dancing with the chicken for the hell 
of it though, then it all makes perfect sense.  

I understand what you mean about trying to unify worldviews. 
My solution, not the greatest, is to *not* commit myself to any
particular belief system or theories.  I find myself doing so now 
and then, but its just temporary and could change at any moment.  
With magick I play one view off against the opposite and find it 
leads to many insights I would not have ordinarily gained.
Not having any belief system, I never have any crises about my 
system being debunked.  Though I can imagine how threatening this 
can be by imagining that the fundamental xtians are right after 
all.  That would be an upset!  

There are, obviously, disadvantages to having no set belief 
system, and I might someday decide to dance with the chicken 
anyway.

- Peggy -