From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Scientific basis for magic. (FAQ material?)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:08:46 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

9209.28 e.v.

Mark Kempe writes:

If you are not interested in the rigors of modern science, 
then why did you offer your thesis in the rogorous form of
a proof? 


Response:

Because Science is not made by 'proofs'.  I was being sarcastic
with regard to the 'rigors' of modern Science and I characterized
its modern devolution as a circus of materialism.  I hope that
this was not lost on you.  The old ways are important.  If you
have forgotten them, don't blame it on me.


Mark:

If you are not interested in the rigors of modern science,
then why do you want to prove that your magickal researches
constitute a modern science.


Response:

As I said in my (lengthy) post, it is not a proof so much as an
explanation.  I think that no 'proof' can be given beyond an experience
with the methods of Science and Art.  I put it in a format which I
thought that 'scientists' would understand.  Note that Axioms are
not disputable.  They are assumptions.  If you don't agree with the
assumptions that is understandable, but it doesn't mean that they
are inaccurate.  We come from different backgrounds and it is obvious
by our styles.


Mark:

Either "be a modern science" or "don't be a modern science".
Decide which you want to be and then do it.


Response:

That's one of the great things about Magick.  One isn't faced with these
black and white neologisms as a Mage.  Sorry to see you've bought the hog.
The only thing about 'what I want to be' is more coherent to myself.  I
abide as much as I can in 'knowing myself', rather than 'shaping myself',
even though it sometimes takes much of the latter to achieve the former.


Mark:

One of the keys to successful communication is to speak
the same language that your audience does.  To use words
with other than their commonly understood meanings is not
conducive to good communication.


Response:

Right.  That's why I said UP FRONT what I meant by the words.  Please
reread the first post more carefully.  You'll note quite a few definitions
which are there different from how you interpreted the terms to which
they apply.  I am being consistent as I see it.  You are critiquing it 
from a very narrow viewpoint.


old Thyagi [MARK, WHY WOULD I ASK THIS QUESTION??? PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.]:

yet I would like to see your proposal for an 'open-ended corroboration'
which does not negate subjective science.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  <- what does this mean to you?


Mark:

The notion of independent corroboration is applicable to
clean predictions.  Science makes many such clean predictions
and they are routinely tested.  


Response:

Here you tell me about what you think Science is.  Nice.


Mark:

Magickers seldom make such
predictions and so are not often subject to simple test.  I
feel that this has more to do with the nature of "human
skills" than it does with the nature of "magick".


Response:

Here you give me your ideas about Magick.  Also nice.  Still not addressing
my request.


Mark:

Let me give you two examples of esoteric skills, one arcane
and one mundane:

[examples omitted]

In each case, detailed instructions can be written down,

[I don't agree that instructions for Magick can be written down in
detailed fashion.  Crowley did his best and still confounds most modern
Mages.]

and students can study it.  In each case, the students will
be unable to reproduce the master's feat.  Is this because
the instructions were humbug?  


Response:

I'll first note that most if not all of your questions are rhetorical.
This is intimates your means of understanding things - literally and
very inaccurately in my case.  The style of literal understanding only
works when the two people involved have the same reference-frame.  Given
that we don't (and I assert that this is indeed the case), then your
assumption that you understand is just another example of modern Science's
know-it-all-ism.


Mark:

No, it is because the power
was not in the words, but in the practicianer who spoke them.


Response:

What power?  Where?  Where was it in the practitioner?  In their spleen?
In their gonads?  Please provide a detailed biological analysis.


Mark:

Human skills are acquired, developed and exercised under
very complex situations that do not admit of controlled
experimentation.  In the end, it is not the "ritual" but
the experience, discipline, aptitude and skill of the
practicianer who determine the outcome of an experiment.


Response:

Again we have YOUR ideas about how Magick and Science are different.
Very nice, yet you have once again failed to perform what I asked of
you.  I don't really care what your ideas about these two are as
long as you maintain their distinction.  Why?  Because it does not
conform to my EXPERIENCE of them, and this, at root, is what I am
attempting to convey (NOT prove).


Mark:

This does not violate any laws of science, but it is not
particularly subject to scientific inquiry.


Response:

So you say.  I agree that with what I perceive to be your limited
concept of what Science is (perfectly modern, I might add, though
ultimately flawed through myopia), Magick has little to do with it.
You could have saved us all the work of typing and reading by just
saying 'my ideas don't agree with yours.  See ya'.


Mark:

I did not attempt to impugn your thesis by likening your
claims to some stupid doctrine, or saying that you didn't
know what you were talking about.


Response:

No, you impugned it by imposing your own definitions upon it.
You come here and criticise it from YOUR worldview and then think
that that defines it.  Well, it doesn't.  Your worldview works,
in a certain context (largely the material), but it doesn't synthesize
in experience, which I think that mine does, especially when mine
also meets up with the way that many old teachers describe Magick, 
which yours does not.


old Thyagi:

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).
   ^^^^^^^^ < note


Mark:

I was speaking of TSM whose steps you elaborated in your
proof.  


Response:

Were you?  Are you, then, suggesting that you know it better than I do?
That's cool, but if so I get to quiz you on it.  ;>


Mark:

Many intelligent students of phenomenology have
used less rigorous approaches.  The Aristotelians, for
instance, utterly rejected the premise that experiment
and observation were valid means for evolving and pruning
scientific theories.  They were "idealists" who believed
that "only the mind" was capable of discerning the true
nature of the universe, and that our world was corrupt
anyway, so experiments on this world had no bearing on
the true ways of things.


Response:

Excuse me, but what does this have to do with Learning Theory and the
TSM from my post?  Mine is not rigorous at all.  It is intentionally
ambiguous so as to allow for ALL study, as I mentioned previously.
I really don't think you are following my words.  Please read more
carefully.


Mark:

If you want to discuss questions like "what is scientific
inquiry" and "pragmatic world views that can encompass
arcane pursuits" I am very intested.  If you want to defend
your pet theory, I suggest that you just declare a victory
and have done with it.


Response:

My intent is only to offer up a model.  To the extent that you
criticize it without knowing much about it and without spending the
time to appreciate its intricacies I tend to react unfavorably.  I'd
be happy to answer/ask questions about it so that we can be sure that
we are on the same wavelength, but you seem to be focussed on 'winning
and losing' arguments.

I think that the question of 'what is scientific inquiry?' is a very
important one, yet if you mean by this some sort of materialist,
proboscus-snooting, anal-ysis, then I'm not really interested and the
boys over in alt.sci.materialism would be happy to ingest your small-
mindedness.


So that I will not succumb to my own criticism, here are some questions
for you to ponder/answer:

What is Science?

What is Magick?

How do the two relate?

If they don't, why don't they?

What is the Scientific Method?

How does it relate to Learning Methods?

Where does Science stop and Art begin?

Where does Science stop and Religion begin?

How are these (Science and Art/Religion) related, if at all?


I hope you come up with some interesting answers.  Perhaps you may wish
to post the answers in a separate post from your responses to this entire
verbal spewing. :>


Thyagi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I get impatient with people who seem to be making too many assumptions
about me and what I say.  It is an occupational hazard.  Also, I doubt
that many could understand that model if approaching from the worldview
of materialism without asking some very important questions.  I think
that all Science has more to do with ASKING than ANSWERING. 
Xref: sparky alt.magick:4928 alt.pagan:10172 alt.religion.all-worlds:77