#41973 - 08/16/10 01:27 PM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Diavolo]
|
Autodidact
member
Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 371
|
(general reply)
(NB: in the time it's taken me to put my thoughts together, much of this has already been discussed. Feel free to skip altogether.)
Reading through this thread, it seemed a good exercise to spell out my current thoughts on magic, and throw them into the mix for comment. Note that this is mostly my own definitions and my current opinion on why things are. I've never done any rituals. This might seem baseline to most of you, but I like understanding why things work.
Background
The human brain is a remarkable thing. It's an excellent pattern-matching device, able to find patterns with a minimal amount of information. (See, for example, the success rates of EMTs or firemen who need to make decisions under pressure on almost zero information.) It's so good, in fact, that's it's very easy to trick false positives out of it.
But even more remarkable than that, it's aware of its own functioning, and is able to reprogram itself. So easily is this accomplished that it's often done unknowingly based on the inputs a person gets. Most people would not admit this to themselves.
Human are social animals, and evolved as such. (See, eg, Ed Wilson's Sociobiology) Whether social behavior is embedded in the genes or not is irrelevant to this discussion, but the fact that most human behavior is predictable is. (See, eg, Cialdini's Influence)
Humans are also herd animals, by which I mean that it takes far less energy to just let the alpha male make the decisions.
I heard Arthur C. Clarke's quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" when I was very young, and use it in a more general sense - "technology" (including magic) is just a tool, whether physical or procedural, and "sufficiently advanced" is a more specific way of saying "any unknown".
LBM
Given the above, most LBM is only "magic" because most people don't understand how people or social groups work. I'm not saying I do, of course; I'm just saying that it seems to me that most LBM could/should be explainable via normal human behavioral responses. I don't discount "super-/supra-natural" methods, but I've never actually seen them in play. For instance, much of what LaVey says in The Satanic Witch is (it seems to me) simply leveraging normal male sexual instinct and behavior.
The "smile" example given earlier in the thread is a perfect example. Despite being denounced as "insignificant", consider what actually happens - you perform an action, and somebody else automatically performs a known response, without thinking about it. In essence,you have made them act by your will. Simple, yes, but this is the basic building block of all (or much) LBM.
A better example is from Cialdini's book: a Hare Krishna gives you a flower, you take it, then a donation is asked for - usually it's given. This is the reciprocation rule, and it works extremely well. Marcel Mauss phrased it thus: "There is an obligation to give, an obligation to receive, and an obligation to repay."
With this understanding of LBM (even if there's more to LBM), it seems clear that one with a Will, an alpha male (or alpha female) can easily conceive a method to work his will on most people. It might take a lot of work, though ... if it was easy, anybody could do it. To paraphrase Crowley, "Everybody is a potential star." Not everybody is actually willing to expend the effort, though - this is what separates (in this context) Satanists from sheeple. Sheeple have their SU constructed by others.
Lucifer Rising mentioned "high magic" in another thread - personally I call that "propaganda", as codified by Edward Bernays in the 1920's (I think). It's basically the same thing - control the input people get, leverage known human behavioral responses, make them act as desired. (Update: see the Hitler examples earlier in this thread.)
In both small-scale and large-scale LBM, continuous exposure or repetition leads to reprogramming the targets. Brainwashing is a concentrated version of this. American "political discussion" in the media is probably a more wishy-washy, undirected form of this.
GBM
I have not done any GBM rituals, but my distinct impression is that part of GBM is akin to "doing LBM on yourself". Since one can autodeify, and one controls one's subjective universe, and since one's brain is easily reprogrammable, it seems that it should be straightforward to adjust as desired. ("Look everybody, it's Tony Robbins!")
I think this is the objective (or part of the objective) to the yoga practices in the Crowley systems and the Temple of Set (I think I saw something that made me think that of ToS - please correct me if I'm wrong). See also Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising.
If you reprogram your SU to get where you want to be, is that any different than changing the OU? I dunno. In my metaphysics, the OU includes all SUs, including yours - does changing your own SU constitute changing the OU? Again, I dunno. Certainly seems like it.
GBM also seems a useful tool to focus yourself, and perhaps to focus your will (or Will). I think this is also part of the point of yoga in AC's systems, or perhaps in general.
Since I haven't done any rituals, I can't speak to actually modifying the OU solely via a GBM ritual ("like in the movies"). As I said in the beginning, I don't rule it out, I just haven't seen it done.
Conclusion
There is no conclusion - I'm learning and cross-referencing a lot of this, and I'm open to having my mind changed. As I said, this is all just my current opinion, and probably not new for most of you.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41977 - 08/16/10 08:11 PM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Duende]
|
Dan_Dread
senior member
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 2010
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Dan Dread,
Your view of GM as mere psychodrama is very common among those who have not tried it, are unsuccessful at it, or are simply afraid of it. It is quite common for people like you, to feel insecure when their beliefs are challenged and then lash out to defend their soft and lazy perspectives.
This made me laugh. Project much? I challenged your idea, and here you are lashing out with asinine character judgments and direct personal attacks. One can only assume because you are insecure 
Examining complex ideas such as Greater Magic and the operation of the human psyche demands that you get up and away from the soft drinks and potato chips, and actually do hard work. I can help you when you are ready to get back into shape . Until that time, it is obvious that you are not responsible for what you say or do on the 600 club any more than a boisterous fifth grader who stumbled into a university level class.
Well, from my perspective you have things exactly backwards. The sort of beliefs based on a need to believe rather than any sort of consistency with reality are a dime a dozen. If you think you are actually effecting the universe by saying some chants and lighting some candles, or even somehow creating the universe with your thoughts, I don't really think you are in any position to be pretending your perspective is somehow more advanced. Maybe advanced as far as psychosis go, but that's about it.
We live in the material world, and if you understand magic in anything other than a carnal context you are simply deluding yourself, and further missing out on the benefits understanding your tool set provides.
The perspective that GM is just "play acting" for fun or just emotional gratification is not the only one on the matter.
Putting words into my mouth is rather unbecoming, you should really stop letting your emotions rule you. I neither used those words nor did I imply anything close to what you are saying. I fear you have missed the point entirely.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41978 - 08/16/10 08:18 PM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Diavolo]
|
Dan_Dread
senior member
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 2010
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
If you are saying the universe IS..for all intents and purposes, sensory signals interpreted by the brain, and as such the only reality we can experience is completely subjective,..then I agree 100%.
Consider a video game. All the code is there, in a certain order, formatted a certain way. The graphics engine interprets that code and delivers it in a way that is meaningful to our brain and senses. Take the graphics engine away, and the code is still there. Reality is what it is, all we are is interpreters.
On the other hand, the belief that we somehow project reality out of ourselves and without us all would cease to exist, is patently stupid.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41980 - 08/16/10 10:36 PM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Duende]
|
Lucifer Rising
member
Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 146
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
|
I would like to clarify GM to the legions of the silent majority who read posts on the 600 Club daily. Having personally interacted with a good number of Church of Satan and Temple of Set members through the years, I can state that most Satanists *do not* believe Greater Magic is just mere psychological "play acting."
Well according to Duende I was right about one thing for sure. He's implied there are plenty of delusional people sitting in rooms trying to change the world by thinking really, really hard about it, and not only in Indianapolis. When do I get my apology Doc?
Just so I'm clear, no hard feelings toward Doctor Aquino. We seem to mostly agree on the stuff that matters. You can't just sit in a room and expect shit to happen.
As for Duende, he's well convinced that there is some scientifically irrelevant force that does all the hard work. Probably no hope for him.
Autodidact, that was a great response. Easy to say that when I agree almost completely, but still. Propaganda definitely is High Magic according to my definition. There are other things besides propaganda that could be considered HM, but most HM could be classified as propaganda of some sort. I just prefer the term. You have to admit though, compared to propaganda, with all its negative connotations, High Magic sounds almost royal.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41985 - 08/17/10 05:15 AM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Diavolo
Moderator
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 3772
|
If you are saying the universe IS..for all intents and purposes, sensory signals interpreted by the brain, and as such the only reality we can experience is completely subjective,..then I agree 100%.
Consider a video game. All the code is there, in a certain order, formatted a certain way. The graphics engine interprets that code and delivers it in a way that is meaningful to our brain and senses. Take the graphics engine away, and the code is still there. Reality is what it is, all we are is interpreters.
On the other hand, the belief that we somehow project reality out of ourselves and without us all would cease to exist, is patently stupid.
Of course the universe as we perceive it is nothing but a manifestation of sensory interpretation and when we, the observers, cease to exist, all -Earth, the galaxy etc- will lose its current natural shape. The natural reality as we know it will indeed cease to exist.
We do project reality, or what most perceive as reality, and as such, I do think it can be molded but unless we are able to circumvent, or manipulate our biological limitations, we'll be stuck in only toying with the interpretation.
In some ways it is similar to the computer analogy besides us being an independently evolved processor that developed its own unique way of interpreting the basic code and translating it on its monitor. The only difference being we have a hunch there is some basic code but because we are limited to interpreting that what we, at the same time, manifest, it is close to impossible for us to penetrate into the very basics.
D.
Edited by Diavolo (08/17/10 05:53 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41988 - 08/17/10 10:13 AM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Lucifer Rising]
|
Autodidact
member
Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 371
|
If the SU is an aspect of the OU, then are you asserting that GM is merely a psychological effect that does not extend beyond the mind of the individual Satanist? I suppose this is mostly right, but you're missing a huge aspect of it. The GM ritual will only effect you psychologically, but the psychological effects will change your behavior. This brings what you've done in the GM ritual to the realm of the OU and LM. You use GM to change yourself, change your behavior, with the goal of enhancing your LM abilities.
This exchange, I think, is the crux of the whole conversation.
Duende, you said you wanted to know how GM works - well, that's how it works. You change yourself, then you act.
Part of the problem here seems, to me, to be too much abstraction. If we stop using the term "OU" to mean all the collected SUs and start using the term "human society", things should become much more understandable.
It should then also be clear, I suspect, that what's trying to be passed off as "GM" is actually the realm of LM. One cannot simply redefine things and, as Lucifer Rising said, "sit in a room and expect shit to happen."
Society is made up of other people, each with their own wills (regardless of whether you think they're using them effectively or not). If you want to call that whole shared experience "the OU", that's fine and dandy, but doing something solely in your own SU (eg in your ritual chamber) will not affect someone else's SU. You must act in the "real world", where your SUs overlap, if you wish to change their SU.
If you're "targetting" one person, you're doing what LaVey called LBM. If you're "targetting" a million people, you're doing what Lucifer Rising calls "High Magic", which is based on LBM principles - it's not GBM simply because the scope is larger.
I would like to clarify GM to the legions of the silent majority who read posts on the 600 Club daily. Having personally interacted with a good number of Church of Satan and Temple of Set members through the years, I can state that most Satanists *do not* believe Greater Magic is just mere psychological "play acting."
If they're not acting in the real world, outside the ritual chamber, to achieve their goals, then they're no different than the masses that pray for health or a promotion or winning the lottery.
In those cases, ironically, when they identify something that seems to affirm the success of their ritual, they're actually closer at that moment to real GM than they were in the ritual chamber.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41990 - 08/17/10 03:40 PM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Diavolo]
|
Dan_Dread
senior member
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 2010
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
All magick can be described as manipulation and as such, there are only two approaches; either manipulate oneself or manipulate others.
And that my friend, is really the bottom line.
/thread
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#42004 - 08/17/10 08:26 PM
Re: Views on Magic
[Re: Duende]
|
Autodidact
member
Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 371
|
I experience catharsis as well but there are times when there appears something of the ritual did act beyond my skull and modify the SU of other people and the OU.
Hm, try looking at it from my point of view: the statement above sounds like you're saying, "Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't."
How would you try to convince me it's not just coincidence? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. For instance, is there a certain method that works reliably more often than chance?
I'm not questioning your beliefs, just trying to evaluate your claims.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
