From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:13:17 GMT

Okay, this guy decided to ignore my request.....

In article <1emcckINNf2q@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>In article <By12GK.K7q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>TN>Perhaps we have a terminology difficulty here? What is Magick? I assumed you
>TN>meant Magic, or similar practices involving the supernatural, none of which
>TN>will reproduce under the glare of klieg lights.
>> Science is basically organized knowledge. We all know that. Science is also
>> very reliable because we can back our claims up with real-world experiments
>> and reams of data.
>> Magick is not science. [...] I can't go into a hell of a lot of detail [...]
>
>O.k. - so why do you say Magic is as valid as science?

I said that they are both valid thought-systems. Please refer to my first
post on the matter.
As far as not going into a Hell of a lot of detail, the reason I cannot
is because there is an awful lot of detail that needs extensive explaination.


>
>By the way, the accepted spelling in Modern English is "Magic". There is no
>word in current english spelled "Magick". This isn't just to be pedantic;
>since you are talking about something that is particularly clear, use of
>terminology should be as accurate as possible. When terms are used that
>are not in current use (Webster's is as good a source as any), you should
>carefully define the new terms you invoke.

I have. The reason I use MAGICK is to differentiate it from MAGIC, the
former refering to  a (basically psycological) practise, the other refering
to illusion.

>
>> [...]
>> If I had to put it simply, magick is the art of reaching your subconscious.
>> It has some things to do  with physics and biology and so on,  but is 
>> mostly taking greater control of your own mind and body. [...]
>
>You have been so vague as to not give me any idea what you are talking about.
>It certainly has the connotations of magical thinking (if you want something
>bad enough, it will happen - mind over matter), but I can't understand enough
>of what you say to comment on any specifics.

DO you really want me to publish more specific definitions? Fine...

MOstly it is a psycological practise. The only fucking reason we have posts
galore on this subject in a physics newsgroup is because one person  decides
to take one statement and go after it. The connections between biology, physics
and so on are thus: these primitive magickal practises, ideals and metaphors
have been abandoned long ago because of a belief that technology can give us
all the answers. So far, technology has solves a lot of practical problems.
But people feel alienated (would you like me to go into why? Read Marx's
hypothesis of what is wrong with society. It's not as simple as many of you
might think. Then go into Victor Frankl's ideas on alienation and what  we 
can do about it. Then go and watch reruns of the LA riots. If anyone here 
doubts that alienation is a problem after considering this evidence, then
you're missing some obviously important connections because you refuse
to think about them.)
	Even with all the explainations for alienation, there is still this
problem of why people are alienated. Marx obviously didn't really know, and
Frankl doesn't tell us. Meanwhile we have new discoveries in biology and 
physics that rather closely paralell what primitive magick has been telling
us all this time. SImple ex: Firewalking is not a myth, but a simple application
of thermodynamics (hot coals have little energy and the human foot has a 
high specific heat, plus the moisture on the feet allows for a sort
of skidding efffect like a drop of water on a hot skillet.) Biological findings
demonstrate that humans have a set of natural tones which they have an affinity
towards because of the structure of the human brain cell (has anyone ever
wondered why they like the music they do, on a biological level?) Psycology
finds explainations for "psychic" powers like visiting the dead and so on
which demonstrated that such rituals have a practical purpose (ie allowing
the person to heal after a traumatic loss). And now we depend on primitive
medicinal practices to find a cure for cancer. The scientific principles have
never changed. The brain is still the brain. The cell is still the cell. The
chemical nature of a plant is no different wheither you use magick or science.
The only difference is that the criteria for validity are different. A
scientist uses data to confirm what is true. A mystic uses mysticism, or
magick, or whatever you will call it, to forsee what is true. This is why
the Tao Of Physics is recommended reading. I'm not talking about some 
sort of special powers that I have that make me above any of you. I'm
talking about things which we can do which have a scientific explaination
behind them but which come from this sort of primitive background. There
is validity in both as far a thought systems. I have yet to hear from 
one person who realizes that magick is not some sort of pseudo-science,
but a primitive but still quite useful means of predicting what science
*can* prove.
>
>TN>Can you provide us with an example of a phenomena that you regard as Magick?
>> 	A man in Siberia, as part of his initiation into the circle of
>> shamans, climbs a long post. As he does this, he is "granted" a vision.
>> [...more allegory...]
>
>In other words, nothing specific, nothing that can be examined, and nothing
>that can be tested. That seems to fail the "equally valid" test.

You obviously did not read my post. I find this highly intellectually
dishonest. This phenomenon is *quite* examinable and very testable.
There are people in Siberia doing this right now. 

>
>> Look, I'm sure that people in this group are ticked that this thread is
>> getting so much attention. Please email me for further discussion. Even
>> if you don't take me seriously, it  would save the others a  lot of  
>> trouble.
>
>I haven't heard any complaints. This group is dedicated to psuedo-science
>and arguments about it (at least, that's what the group creator intended -
>perhaps I should re-post the original group charter). As long as you make
>outrageous claims such as "Science and Magick are both quite valid", I'll
>be damned if I let your postings go uncontested.

Since you respond in post, I will do the same. Again, I see no complaints
here either.

>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

Mike Smith
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories