From: eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Edward M. Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Belief Systems
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:10:16 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <Bt8r5y.K4F@acsu.buffalo.edu> oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
>
>Now, why does it surprise me that people would claim the ability to 
>bend chance routinely?  Because there is no way to reliably prove 

I'm not sure I believe in random occurances or probability, except as a 
generally useful mathematical model.  In the real world, if you flip a 
coin 999 times and it comes up Tails every time, then there is NOT a 50%
probability that it will come up Tails the next time.  It's either gonna
be strongly in favor of either heads or tails, but "the odds are" that 
it ain't 50%. 

I would like to suggest that this a is yet another way of looking at 
the whole problem.  If nothing is random, if there is no external world 
that exists without influence from the observer, then doing magic becomes
another question.  If I interact with my direct environment, which is  
therefore something it wouldn't be without me, and then my direct 
environment interacts with other parts of the environment, and meanwhile
non-local quantum effects are occuring starting the same process all over, 
then the whole universe is different because I exist.  If I "will"
something to occur, and it subsequently occurs, regardless of the limitations
of Newtonian or even Einsteinian physical causality, then "Dat's Magic". 

>Maybe [fill in the blank] works and maybe it doesn't.  But I've 
>seen a lot of people toss out their ability for rational thinking 
>in order to maintain their belief system.  Its a sad day for the 
>rational side when I am defending it, since I'm not strongly that 
>way, and have been criticized for recalcitrance toward the 
>scientific method, logic, and even facts.
>
No matter what you believe, even if you believe that you change all your
beliefs every moment of time, eventually, everything you know comes down to
the non-rational position of "I believe it because I do."

This is not poking fun at Peggy. I believe I understand the level and 
intent of what she is talking about enough to respect what she's talking
about. 
(Ye gods  and little fishes, this gets recursive so fast). 

I feel that one of the basics of magick, (and this is where talk about 
religion is relevant to magic) is an understanding of and ability to 
deal with the aspects of not only your own belief system, but those of 
beings around you. Anyone who understands the basis of *Debbie's* rather
consistent belief system will be able to communicate with her or even 
manipulate her environment accordingly.  This is equally true for when 
dealing with spirits.

NOBODY can question your basic belief system, except me and thee, and I'm 
not sure that thee has the hardward and/or software to do it.  This is 
one of the reasons behind why this list typically tries to discourage talk
of religion, because 99.9% of that talk just boils down to specific "I 
believe it" claims about upper level tenets of those religions.  This is, 
of course, equally valid about every other topic.  Except for where you 
are willing to artificially limit the structure of your discussion to 
certain references, assumptions, etc.  After awhile, if you are a doctor
and part of the AMA structure, then anyone who talks about certain kinds
of alternative healing cannot be communicated with, because no initial 
agreement can be made about what parameters and limits the communication
will take, specifically because once you hold a particular world view, 
you are automatically limited by it's own borders.

If you believe in consistency and completeness as physical, philisophical,
or mathematical realities (I tend not to, whereever I am allowed to), then
you may think that because the vast majority of "accepted" literature, 
practice, and practicioners of linguistics think that NLP is a pseudo-
system more than half full of bunk, that this has some weight in considering
the actual merits of NLP.  If you have invested part of your life-path in
NLP and find that it has experiential validity in your own existence, then 
this has weight in considering the actual merits of NLP. (just as one 
small example).  Nonetheless, the vast majority of my day-to-day interactions
do operate as though I do believe wholeheartedly in not only consistency
and completeness (I am using these as technical terms, incidentally), but
that I believe in Newtownian mechanics as well.

I think that this could be an interesting discussion, but only if we keep 
it off the higher levels of *what* we believe for the most part, and Try 
to discuss how what we believe about our belief systems relates to magick.

Enough for now. 

				eddie@legba.oit.unc.edu