X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: fnord-l@ubvm.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:31:21 -0400
From:         "Salamander~" <majcher@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      crowley and m.agnosticism and such...
X-To:         leri-l@iscsvax.uni.edu, fnord-l@ubvm.BITNET

[anonymously forwarded from extropians]

> What I've never seen, and I've looked for it on alt.magick and alt.pagan,
> is an explanation of what the practitioners of such paths actually do and
> believe, and why, especially when they are (presumably, by their presence
> here) not caught up in "baseless fluffy-bunny crystal chakra foo-foo".
>
> Christians are ready (all too ready, sometimes) to explain what they
> believe and why.  I reject their premises but I can understand them.
> I would like to understand the beliefs and practices of these other paths,
> especially in the context of an extropian world-view.
> Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk

Okay, Rich, here's my take on the whole deal.  Bear in mind that
others may interpret my sources differently than I do.  Here's
what I "believe":

First, I espouse model agnosticism.  This simply means that my
choice of what model to apply to a given situation is context-
dependent.  The most hackneyed example of model-agnosticism is
the wave-particle duality of light.  As a grand over-simplification,
one could say that all of quantum mechanics is just a framework
for deciding which model to apply to a given particle in a given
set of circumstances.  Part of model-agnosticism is the Popperian
requirement of falsifiability:  you must admit when your model
no longer matches your sense-data observations, and get ready to
apply a different model.

Another part of model-agnosticism is the ability to maintain
multiple models, perhaps mutually-inconsistent ones, explaining
the same phenomena.  This applied to the wave-particle conundrum,
until QM came along.  Because we never have "the" final model
that perfectly explains everything, the need for this skill
continues.

Model agnosticism is not solely applicable to physical science.
The brain also applies models to the world for social reasons,
and these models vary widely.  An individual's model for the
world (their "reality-tunnel," in Robert Anton Wilson's
phraseology) is their explanation for how the world (matter,
society, "parking karma") works.  In order to understand someone,
you need to understand his "reality tunnel".  A Christian
Fundamentalist inhabits a very different reality than a gay
activist, or a Cuban Marxist, or an Iranian Muslim fundamentalist.
These individuals will interpret the world in very different
ways, and will ascribe different workings and underlying
mechanisms to explain their sense-data observations.

The "magickal" part comes in when you realize that {\ital you
can change your reality-tunnel}.  Rather than blindly sitting
in the viewpoint that genetics+circumstances+"divine intervention"
placed you in, you can adopt a different mental model.  Many of
us on this list, I'm sure, once held very different beliefs than
we do today, and we all hold very different beliefs than the other
members of the list.  Rather than being a passenger on that ride,
it's possible to become the driver, and choose your reality-
tunnel, rather than have one forced on you by the blind forces
of spontaneous order.

Aleister Crowley is perhaps one of the most misunderstood thinkers
of the twentieth century.  The briefest way to describe Crowley
is as a "mystic," but mysticism was only one of the reality-
tunnels he inhabited.  The central devotion of his life was the
{\ital application of the tools of science to the study of
"religion"}.  Please, O Rationalists, don't dogmatically stop
reading at this point.  I will explain what that means.

Because the human brain appears to be a recursive system, we
have not only beliefs but also meta-beliefs.  We incorporate a
host of Minskyan "agents", sometimes in conflict.  We resolve to
give up beer and pizza, yet we find ourselves indulging.  We are
"of two minds".  We have the capability not only to think but
to observe ourselves thinking.  (Have you ever had the experience
of finding yourself on an unusual topic of thought or conversation,
then back-tracking the chain of associations that led you there?)

Crowley studied the effects of belief on thinking.  Belief is
central to the study of the mind "from the inside" because, in
the words of Dr. John C. Lilly, "In the province of the mind, what
is believed to be true either is true or becomes true, within
limits to be determined by experience and experiment."  If you
believe that you are "depressed", you are.  If you believe that
you are "stupid," you become so.  If you believe that the world is
a dull and un-wondrous place, voila, it is.  The Christian who
believes in the miracles of the Lord observes them everywhere, or,
in the Sufi proverb, "The fool sees not the same tree as the wise
man sees."

This is relevant to extropianism because of the our tenet (well,
Tom and Max's tenet; I had nothing to do with its formulation) of
Dynamic Optimism.  The belief that you can affect your future and
better yourself is empowering, a goad to action.  The belief in
Death and Taxes is less empowering.  The technology of changing your
brain, of shaping your beliefs to those it is *useful* to believe,
rather than those you got stuck with through accident, is an
important one.  Lilly calls it "self-meta-programming" (you are
both the programmer and the meta-programmer who programs the
programmer); Crowley called it (in an unfortunate accident of
history) "Magick".

A concise definition of "magick" is "acts that bring about
change in conformity with the will".  This is an intentionally
broad definition, including all of science and technology.  The
technology that Crowley specifically developed was that of
bringing about change within the mind.

Crowley drew on, and wrote about, a broad range of techniques for
"tampering" with the contents of the mind.  Yoga (both asana, the
adoption of "postures" that we typically think of as yoga, and
pranayama, breathing techniques), meditation, exercise, drugs,
sex (the "tantric" school of yoga), and what we could call
Skinnerian operant conditioning were among his tools.  Since the
subconscious mind deals in symbols and dreams, Crowley also drew
on the symbolic systems of various schools of mysticism --
the Hebrew caballa, Greek and Egyptian mythology, the Tarot deck,
and Western astrology -- to provide an elaborate and consistent
symbolic language with which to communicate with the subconscious.

Crowley was as meticulous in observing the results of his
experiments with these techniques as any physicist.  As one of
the list members quoted Crowley,
        "We place no reliance
         on Virgin or Pigeon;
         our method is Science,
         our aim is Religion."
That is, rather than accepting received dogma, Crowley urged his
students to think for themselves, to probe and manipulate their
own minds in repeatable experiments, and to record and analyze
the results.  He told his followers not "Believe me" but "Don't
believe me."

As I said, Crowley studied the effects of belief on the brain.
He did this by "persuading" himself, through the techniques of
brain change listed above, of the existence of various entities
>from the various mythological systems.  However, behind this
belief was his overriding meta-belief in scientific rationality.
In one of his books he writes, "If you perform certain operations,
certain results will occur, including the appearance of various
'demons', 'angels', and other mystical entities.  You must refrain
>from assigning any separate physical reality to these entities;
they are creations of your mind only.  However, if you give them
power over you, they will destroy you."  In other words, don't go
off the deep end.  {My quote is approximate; I don't have the
actual text handy.}

However, since Crowley *was* studying belief, it was necessary
to think and behave "as if" believing in these mystical forces,
in order to stimulate the belief to be studied.  [Lilly, in
"The Center of the Cyclone" and "Programming and Meta-Programming
in the Human Biocomputer," writes extensively on "as if" belief
systems.]  One of the goals of Crowley's system was contact with
what he called the "Holy Guardian Angel."  When asked by one of
his students if this Angel was real, Crowley replied "It is real
in the same sense that you and I are real."  However, when asked
the same question by another student, he answered, "It is your
own unconscious, you dolt."

Crowley's life and work definitely reward study.  If there is
any kind of "deeper reality" accessible to human beings, Crowley's
techniques seem to me the surest way of contacting it.  If there
is no deeper reality, Crowley's techniques are worthwhile in order
to more fully control and understand the workings of your own
(conscious and subconscious) mind.  [And, if there is a deeper
reality but it is inaccessible to human beings, then, as Dean says,
it is irrelevant and we may as well not believe in it.]  When I
first began studying Crowley's writings and reproducing his
experiments, I was only interested in understanding and governing
myself better.  However, as advertised, I experienced the appearance
of "mystical entities".  As a result, I no longer dogmatically
dismiss the existence of a "deeper reality," and as a result I am
an agnostic, not an atheist.  [Please re-read that sentence.  I
am an AGNOSTIC -- I do not profess knowledge of or belief in any
mystical or supernatural beings, entities, or systems.  However,
since I am not fool enough to deny the evidence of my own senses,
I do not profess knowledge of their non-existence, either.]

If you have read this far, I'd like to also speak in favor of
multi-valued logic.  I believe that the universe can count higher
than two, and I believe that no epistemology is complete unless,
in addition to "true" and "false", it also includes an "undetermined."
It is an impoverished mind that cannot accept a little ambiguity.

Anyways... that's what I "believe".

[Forwarded from the extropians list]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU