From: saracen@netlink.cts.com (Ann Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:15:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.B6i7iB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)

>Give me a break!  You guys like to go on and on about how magick is a form
>of science and then you are unwilling to present evidence of the results of
>your experiments with it.  Not only that, but you say you can't tell me,
>because then your magick won't work and that it will be "throwing pearls
>before swine."  I've had the same response from quacks and fakes in many
>different dissiplines.  These are just poor excuses that people use, because
>they are afraid of being exposed and unmasked.  Perhaps I should give you
>the basics on the scientific method:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Then I take it you consider Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Einstein, etc. to be
to be nothing more than perpetrators of a series of elaborate hoaxes...since
by your definition of a quack or fake many of the theorums they developed
refer to an observer changing the conditions under which certain experiment
are performed and therefor may invalidate the results. The human mind IMHO
is as sensitive to an observer's interaction with the experiment as any
experiment in quantum or relativistic mechanics. This, to me, is why silence
often is necessary in magickal workings...it adds many new variables to the
equations being worked with that are indeterminant.

>1)  Come up with a hypothesis

Been done...by the individual...however, due to the nature of the experiment
said hypothesis may be radically different for two different people...even
if worded in the same way.

>2)  Conduct experiments.  As a result of those experiments
>    alter your hypothesis into a theory.

And that is what these people are doing...but the theory often applies only
for that specific individual

>3) Present your results to the world.	Your results will only be accepted
>when other people in other places can replicate the results of your experiments
>which back up your theory.

This presumes that the constants in the theorum are the same...however in
this case they are not...and can -not- be the same, therefor the experiment
is invalid from the word go, since every individual has a different subjective
reality, this creates a different set of constants for the experiment.

>If you refuse to present your results or even your experments in detail, then
>there is no logical or rational reason why anyone else should accept what
>you claim.

Many of these experiments have been published (see the reading lists that
show up here on a regular basis)...it is the individuals in this newsgroup
who are choosing not to 'publish'...as is their Will, and right.

>Since you refuse to present experiments and results, then I can only conclude
>that you are deluded and not to be trusted.

There is more to the world than can be explained by the scientific method...
please look again at the list of those whom I have mentioned...were they
deluded since their results (particularly Einstein's) can not truly be
proven at this time?

Another thing as far as the scientific method being Lord and Lady (tm) over
all...you might want to read Godel's theorum :}

Love is the Law, Love under Will
        Anne

--                    
INTERNET:  saracen@netlink.cts.com (Ann Olson)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!saracen
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181