From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Mysticism vs Science (long) (was astrology debunking)
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:48:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <By4nu6.M13@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
> Okay, this guy decided to ignore my request.....

Ah... The joy of being anonymous again... Since he has (among other things)
objected to my answering only parts of his posts, I have kept my editting
down to close to nil this time. THis results in a long, almost unreadable
post - my apologies.

He has also said he is going to do homework and find as many articles from
"reputable sources" as he can and present them by Feb 1st. He is going to
be looking for articles on what he mentions below, as well as dreams & ESP.

My only comment is that I don't regard Psychology Today or even Scientific
American as necessarily authoritative. They simply re-publish conclusions
found elsewhere, and usually without all the various impedimenta of the
actual data or forms of analysis used. Science and Nature do better, if you
get articles from the second halves; the first halves are news and commentary
which are rarely in error, but also don't have data to back them up.

I will mention that my background is not in psychology, magic or medicine.
I have read some in these areas (some freud, some JAMA, some NEJM, I have
the Merck manual sitting on my desk, and I have a close relative who is a
member of a witches' coven in Oregon). My interest lies in the physical
sciences, but I have a wide interest in science in general. In any case,
commentary on his specific posting:

> I said that they are both valid thought-systems. Please refer to my first
> post on the matter.

I checked - you are correct. Your exact words were that they were both valid.
It was my interpretation that you meant "equally valid".

TN>By the way, the accepted spelling in Modern English is "Magic". [...]
> The reason I use MAGICK is to differentiate it from MAGIC, the
> former refering to  a (basically psycological) practise, the other refering
> to illusion.

Since you are starting the new use of a term, you need to thoroughly define
it. Your original post was in relationship to Astrology being valid, so the
normal assumption is that you meant Magic.

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

If you're going to write posts about it, you should be specific.

> 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.

*YOU* were the one who posted about the validity of "Magick" on a physics
newsgroup (actually, a psuedo-science/skeptic newsgroup). As I recall, two
other people commented on your posting, as well.

> 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.

I still don't know what practices you are talking about. Lots of magical
theories were abandoned because they were not shown to be valid or useful.

> But people feel alienated (would you like me to go into why?

If your concern is about people feeling alienated, I understand the
relationship with the subconscious. Various forms of psychotherapy and
psychoanalysis deal with the conflicts between conscious and unconscious
selves. These, however, are therapeutic practices, not research vehicles.
They deal with the ills (mental and physiological) of an individual. A
feeling of alienation can sometimes a treatable illness.

> Read Marx's hypothesis of what is wrong with society.

In my younger days, growing up in a communist-leaning country, I read much
of what Marx wrote. To put it in terms of what politicians today have been
saying, most of his theories lie on the ash-heap of history.

> [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.

There are unhappy people out there willing to use violence to express their
unhappiness. Somehow, this doesn't seem to be unearthing a great truth. Or
have anything to do with technology or science.

> 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.)

You misunderstood the meaning of firewalking. Firewalking was an ordeal to
be passed, indicating favor of the gods. It was a test, and a demonstration
of faith in the religion. The fact that there is a physical explanation of
the observed fact does not validate the religious connotations. This would
be akin to having determined that crucifixion results in death by asphyxiation,
and claiming that this validates Christ's death and resurrection.

> 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).

The fact that some people want to believe in something, and we can figure
out their motivations, lends validity to their absurd belief?

> And now we depend on primitive medicinal practices to find a cure for cancer.

We do? News to me. Unless you regard every medical treatment based on
plants that have been used by primitive societies, a "primitive medical
practice". Does open heart surgery depend on "primitive medical practice"
because it uses digitalis, a drug used by amazonian indians as a poison?

> [magic vs 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.

There is *one* criteria for validity. "DOES IT WORK". I have yet to see
predictions from mystics which exceed the noise level of randomness.

> [... magick is... ]
> a primitive but still quite useful means of predicting what science
> *can* prove.

Specifics, please. Describe methodology.

> >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
> [...]
> 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. 

As I mentioned to the poster in email, since he believes that this applies
to actual events occurring now, some details would be appropriate. Which
shamans? Where in Siberia? What are the researchers looking for? What are
their controls? What do visions have to do with anything?

I editted out his comments about the two possible explanations for the visions
because (to my eyes) they were both shearest bunkum. The known fact is that
human beings, when exposed to extreme stress (physical or mental), will on
occasion experience hallucinations. The initiation into a circle of shamans
in siberia by climbing a pole undoubtebly includes both extreme mental and
physical stress, and is probably aided by psychoactive pharmaceuticals.

Hallucinations are no surprise under those conditions.

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