Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Magical Power(book)
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 11:52:44 +0000

oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes..

[response to colin low omitted]

>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!


I think Peggy has hit an interesting nail right on the head there: I
also tend not to have a fixed view of things - and there has been
intense discussion on this point in sci.philosophy.meta as to whether

        (a) Reality is out there and we just have to find out exactly
        what it is: I.e. one should strive for a universal, fixed,
        perfect description of Life the Universe and Everything.

        (b) Reality is out there, but we simply (and possibly
        demonstrably i.e. Goedel etc) will never come up with one
        'true' description, so we judge descriptions (i.e.
        science/models etc) in terms of their UTILITY and ELEGANCE,
        not their 'truth'.

        (c) Reality is in here, is mental, and in the ultimate is so
        connected to the process of perception, that not only are our
        attempts to come up with a description doomed to failure, but
        in fact the reality and the description are so linked that
        any attempt to describe changes the reality....

Science can cope with the first two models: but barfs completeley on
the third.

VERY few people can cope with anything except the first...

I am hovering somewhere between the second and the third.

>There are, obviously, disadvantages to having no set belief
>system,

Quite so. Mental instability and social isolation.

>and I might someday decide to dance with the chicken anyway.

I hope I am there to see it :-)

>- Peggy -

Leo


P.S. I find that the above three models are VERY useful tools to
judge people: Ask yourself which of the three ways of looking at the
world they have.

In the field of occultism and metaphysics I equate the first with
closed mindedness and dogmatism, the second with cautious
openmindedness, and the third with (often) self indulgent fantasies.

P.P.S. IF proposition (c) is correct, then the act of adopting a
proposition (a) type outlook, leads to an increase in security and a
loss of power and freedom: Or rather the power of the individual is
invested in upholding external reality worldview, not in creating new
belief systems etc. This also may have some bearing on the degree of
defensiveness exhibited by type (a) people.

P.P.P.S. AFAIAC shamanism of the modern variety consists in assuming
(for the purposes of the exercise) a type (c) system to see where it
leads....:-)


Xref: sparky alt.magick:3978 alt.pagan:8155