x-post

On 3 Jun, 13:08, Chade  wrote:
> On 25 May, 00:44, Kisai  wrote:
>
> Hello kiddies.
>
> > In this chapter, *IB* is kind enough to define his terms for the rest
> > of the book.  This is appreciated, as most posters in alt.magick
> > already know, few people  tend to be careful in tending meaning and
> > dive instead into their preconceptions, scattering verbiage like a fat
> > man launching a cannonball into a small pool.  By the time posters
> > have actually managed to deduce what the hell has happened, the pool
> > sits empty of water, with an embarassed  obesity grinning inside.
>
> > (so much for extended metaphors  [...])
>
> IB makes the point that words are symbols. This ties in with some of
> laws. Such as the law of ultimate universes. We might all know what a
> dog is, but that doesn't mean we all have the exact same definition.
> It also ties in with his earlier points that words are associational
> devices.
>
>
>
> > *IB* keeps his definitions terse.  His agenda is to cut away the dross
> > of superstition rather than pay homage to hoary occultism.  He dives
> > into two tangents:  a)the bifurcation of scientific and magical
> > knowledge and b) an examination into the definition of magic
>
> > Here are the definitions:
>
> > _Occult_: "hidden", "secret"
>
> > _Science_ : "Organized knowledge"
>
> > _Mystic_: One who has been initiated into the Greek Mysteries
>
> > As for tangent a), he notes that ideas left occultism and became
> > scientific when they were exposed to rigorous testing.  He then
> > criticizes the scientific method by separating it into "observation"
> > and "experimentation".  Some scientific fields, like astronomy, he
> > argues, only have observation as a possibility.  He then points out
> > that scientific hypotheses are educated guesses, dependent on other
> > educated guesses and predicts that one day our laws of nature will be
> > derided as "sheer superstition and stupidity".  He also  points out
> > parapsychology (and science) as the child of occultism.  He also seems
> > hopeful about new theories and ideas which the future may have to
> > offer.
>
> > As for tangent b)... see the next post.
>
> I think he's saying that things move from being occult to science when
> they are understood and used by many rather than (poorly) understood
> by a very few.
>
> Encyclopedia Britannica 1768:
>
> "The priests of the magi were the most skillful mathematicians and
> philosophers of the ages in which they lived, insomuch that a learned
> man and a magician became equivalent in terms. The vulgar looked upon
> their knowledge as more than natural, an imagined them inspired by
> some supernatural power...."
>
> However, the attitude that occultism is just something that those slow
> scientists haven't studied properly yet (but will be proved someday)
> can be a dangerous one. Whilst it's true that scientists will continue
> to mine occultism, to a greater or lesser extent, some of it *is*
> nonsense and has been discarded as such. It's also true that some
> occult 'theories' such as reincarnation aren't really testable so
> can't be studied through the scientific method.
>
> The root of the word mystic maybe from the Greek sects, but that's
> entomology rather than a current definition. IB goes on to make the
> distinction that mystercism is passive and magick active.
>
> IB paraphrases Malinowski who says:
> religion - nonphysical means non-practical ends
> magic - nonphysical means to practical ends
> science - physical means to physical ends
>
> Then asks where a priest holding a mass for rain fits in or a curse
> that a enemies afterlife is unhappy.
>
> So people;
>
> Can meaningful distinctions be made between magic and religion?
>
> What's your definition of mystercism?
>
> Do you hold untestable beliefs now? Why did you accept them? Have you
> given up on untestable beliefs in the past? Why?