From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Scientific basis for magic. (FAQ material?)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 00:47:42 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

9209.26 e.v.


Mark Allen Kampe writes:

I think there are two faults in your proof:

(A) false premise - Axiom S Disciplines are sciences if they use TSM

	Your definition of TSM does not include open-ended independent
	coroboration.  This is a cornerstone of modern (post 1800)
	Science.  Scientists are generally obligated to reject results
	that fail this test, and to reject researchers who refuse to
	submit to it.

	I claim that independent coroboration is a "necessary condition"
	for science.  Since your TSM does not include this necessary
	condition, I believe that your Axiom S is false.


Response:

Well stated.  You are one of the first to so concisely put forward this
objection.  However, as I replied to others in the past, I am
not interested in the 'rigors' of modern Science because it has become
a one-worldview circus of materialism.  Its 'knowledge' is no more
absolute than any gematrian's calculated significances.  I tried to
stave off this objection by stating that 'Science' and 'Magick' ought
be seen in their historical meanings.  Perhaps this is insufficient,
yet I would like to see your proposal for an 'open-ended corroboration'
which does not negate subjective science.  It sounds like your are
simply supporting 'social-reality' and therefore not speaking about
true Science at all.


Mark:

(B) false premise - Axiom U Disciplines which study phenomena use TSM

	TSM is a means of studying phenomena, but not all studies of
	phenomena employ TSM.  It could be argued/defined that all
        rigorous studies of phenomena employ TSM, but then you would
	be left having to prove that all Magick is a rigorous study of 
	phenomena.


Response:

Which 'TSM' are you speaking of here?  I'd like to know what type of
phenomena is NOT studied using the TSM *I* defined (really a theory
of learning, which is imperative to ALL study).  I don't think that
this objection is worthwhile as long as my TSM is so inclusive that
it describes such a wide range of possibilities that it can be used
for many applications.  This amounts to a statement comparable to
many of Crowley's in _MiTaP_.


Mark:

Theorems derived from false premises are vacuously true.  I would be
inclined to back off on the attempted proof and focus on similarities 
in order to derive a rigorous basis for the study of magickal phenomena.
I do not believe that attempting to redefine the words "Magick" and
"Science" in order to make the former be a latter is a productive
endeavor.


Response:

I submit that no 'redefinition' beyond a look to the Ancients is
necessary.  We have forgotten the language of our foreparents and
when someone attempts to reclaim it they get called 'inaccurate'.

Bullocks!  Magick is a science, an art and, as both, a sport.
It requires that some form of obtaining knowledge be present,
a technique for its application, and a style in which it is applied.
Logically this holds true through many applications of its meaning.
Current definitions are simply myopic, and a lack of homework is no
excuse for missing the fine points of magical theory.


Thyagi
--------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, this is my pet theory you're critiquing.  I'm bound to fight
very fiercely before admitting inadequacies in it.  I feel that you
have an advantage, but that your position is failing quickly.