Newsgroups: alt.magick

Peggy Brown writes:
>
>Your response I find very amusing, especially the part about the 
>lion laying down with the chicken.

The door marked 'humour' is right next to the door marked 'despair' :-)
>
>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.

Several definitions of magick have been floated since then and I haven't
the courage to go through them and reconcile them with what I said. Some
holes just keep on getting deeper.
  
>
>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.

If you'll free me from the consequences of anything said previously, and
don't challenge me on the meanings of any words, then I can say the
following: when I wear a pointy hat then I can't find any way of
differentiating between an ordinary intention and a magical intention; this
wasn't always so, and it would be a mistake to interpret this sentence
as asserting that "there is no difference" under all circumstances. What
I mean is that when I examine what I am doing in a certain state of mind
then I can "see" no difference. I interpreted certain things Shava said in
the light of this perception, and reading between the lines, I made an
assumption, rightly or wrongly, that her view of magic and intentionality
was similar to mine, and within that context I could agree with her
that the acquisition of a powerbook was definitely magical. Plenty of
scope for error there, but Shava has been posting for a long time and
she has said many things which I think people tend not to say unless they
have a particular way of looking at the world, "a magical viewpoint", whatever
that might be.

I'd like to duck out of this discussion now, not through any unpleasantness
but because some things are hard to discuss and I'm finding it increasingly
difficult to be happy with the things I'm writing. Honest questions
deserve honest answers, even if they do get knotty, but the maxim "keep
silent" wasn't included in the syllabus out of bloody-mindedness.  
>
>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.

Don't wait too long or you might be left with all the ugly ones ;-)

Ladies and gentlemen, take your partners for "The Galloping White Rooster".

Cheers,
Colin
>
>- Peggy -
>----------