From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magical Power(book)
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:55:44 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <83950118@otter.hpl.hp.com>, cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low) writes:
|> [good stuff, but deleted for brevity]
|>
|> We can explain all causality, and because the laws of nature do not
|> change arbitrarily (without causality!) we can explain all causality
|> at any time in the future. At this particular point in time (1992) we
|> know enough about causality to explain anything which will ever happen
|> at any time in the future.

I have to disagree to this one small point.  Science, in building its religious tenents, has a number of dogmas which many claim to "understand".  From this tenuous basis, others build their own conclusions and observations claiming 
they know all or can explain all.  This can quickly move this thread off to an unwieldy tangent, so let me just say here that I will not be drawn into discussions as to what is Real/Truth/etc.  

|> This strikes me as an absurd position for a rational person to adopt.
|> I don't expect irrational people to worry about causality, but if
|> a person worries about causality (and lots of people on the net do) then
|> this is about the craziest position they could adopt. Does that sound
|> mixed up?
|> 
|> Here is my position: our understanding of causality may be good, or even
|> excellent, but it isn't perfect. Anyone who says it is perfect needs
|> their head examined.
|> 

Ah, but herein lies the crux of the problem.  The western mindset believes 
Science as an underlying frame of reference for understanding causality, is
firmly fixed.  Only the occasional reports filtering out from quantum physics
and other "fringe" science areas do we get the questioning of the basic tenents
of Science.  To further the metaphor, the foundation of Laws of Science is certainly quite sturdy and useful, yet the old foundation can only be built upon
so high.  What we currently call magic seems to be like the sky.  No matter how
high we build, the seemingly solid sky is always above us.  From the ground, 
from the top of the Sears Tower, from the top of the high mountain it is still
"way up there".

Perhaps the mindset to use is more wholistic, to view the sky as from space.
That image in the minds eye can overcome our natural inclination to think of the
sky as a roof ever beyond our grasp and realize it is an outer shell of the earth.  While on the mountain top it is as much around us and below us as we
perceive it above us.

|> There are persistent reports by intelligent people that there are things
|> which happen which cannot be explained by conventional causality. Let
|> us avoid a lengthy stroll with Virgil by skipping this step and going on
|> to the next: there are reports by intelligent people that this inexplicable
|> causality has something to do with the mind, something to do with
|> the nature of consciousness. There is even a bunch of people who claim
|> to know ways of "changing consciousness" in order to enhance this effect.
|> They call themselves magicians.
|> 
|> Let us examine what these people are saying, and let us use the sample
|> on alt.magick as an example. Forget about books - we've got real people
|> here.
|> 
|> Is anyone claiming to be able to be able to fly over the White House?
|> No.

I assume you mean without a plane? :-)

|> Can anyone boil an egg by force of will?
|> No.
|> Is anyone transmuting the lead from their local church roof into gold?
|> Josh remains silent.
|> Is anyone bringing the dead back to life?
|> No sarcasm please.

I've seen this and similar physical manifestations.  I've "participated" in
effecting them in groups and solo.  Sorry if this blows your arguement...

|> I don't expect anyone is walking on water; fire perhaps, no reports of
|> water.
|> Did anyone post a response to this message yesterday? 
|> Haven't seen one.
|> 
|> There is no claim that "doing stuff" includes gross physical effects, the
|> possible exception being weather magic. There is remarkably little in the
|> literature of magic over the past 150 years which features gross effects;
|> if you want your mind properly blown you need to refer to texts on Yoga.
|> 
|> The causality we are looking for is subtle, not gross, which makes it harder
|> to spot, and it has something to do with mind, which makes it impossible
|> to create exactly reproducible experimental conditions. It may not even
|> exist, but we must always take such claims seriously or we fall into
|> the trap of becoming perfect causal reasoners.

I think the point of the original discussion was the expectation of gross effects
as a result of magic.  I have to admit that Hollywood has tainted most people to
truely believe that magic=special effects (including music!).  But I fear you
discount the ability to alter the physical through non-physical means.

In the PowerBook example, we have a case where we have an event described by 
two "journeys", to slightly change your diagrams.  (1) Shava manipulates her
environment to get at her intention (usually deemed a non-magical methodology);
and (2) Shava manipulates the object of her intention towards her (deemed a
magical methodology).  I see the situation as a blending of both.

In this situation, Shava was already on the close path to the object of her intention.  She drove it towards her (and her towards it) through "magic" and
they arrived somewhere in the middle.

This reminds me of the religious joke where a man prays to win a million dollars in the lottery.  He knows his prayer is answered but still has no money.  So,
he fasts and prays more often.   Still no money.  He makes a pilgramage to a holy shrine, fasting, praying, sacrificing, and still no money.  In desperation he
cries out "When will you answer my prayer?"  A voice from heaven replies "Go buy
a ticket!"    

|> Anyway, I've gone on long enough. I convinced myself a long time ago that
|> if I wanted to understand the causality of magic I would have to become
|> a magician, and having spent some time going through the steps I find
|> that I no longer care about the answer - there are further questions
|> which dwarf the original question. I think Peggy's questions are
|> worthwhile, but I don't expect her to get much in the way of satisfactory
|> answers.

True, true.

|> Colin 
|> 
|> The more I study magic the more I see everything
|> I do as equally magical, and the less I understand about the meaning of
|> the word magic.
|> 

Because all we are and do in Malkuth has its common origins in Kether and beyond.
As I begin backing up the Path of Return, I find things deemed magical and mundane have commonality I had not seen before.

-Christopher