Dear Friend
Interesting - although I wonder sometimes whether there isn't a certain
vagueness about this word "science" -
as to your example of using quantum physics to "lend credence" to the
existence of spiritual entities -
that's something that I find very unconvincing when its brought up - i
just don't see the relevance and to be honest am
not always convinced that those making the arguments are
really competant to deploy them - and it ends up just another form of
"mystification" - which is ironic i know.
If you cannot accept the existence of a spiritual entity - why should
you be persuaded using a complex argument -
I can't see the point?
By "Liber Null" is that Peter Caroll?
But again not sure of the point there -
For me its more a question of I believe that (for example) ancient
paganism has some of value that is relevant to our modern life -
this may be to do with a lost technology - but more likely a
philosophical attitude - such as holism - that we need to remember.??
"Love and do what you will"
Mogg
ps: anyone read W V O Quine "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" ?
Ty Falk wrote:
> There seem to be three general categories of people in that regard.
> There are those who view it as some sort of pseudo science, some who
> eschew science all together, and some who find a way to unify the two.
> For example, one of the workshops I've attended regarding deity and
> thought-forms said that yes, we are creating psycho-spiritual entities
> that exist on their own, but if you can't take that on faith, here's
> the science (quantum physics, what have you) that lends credence to
> the theory behind our practice.
>
>
> As for Phil Hine, one of the main themes of Liber Null (at least as I
> saw it) was to allow tradition to persist but only to the point that
> it did not stifle or limit innovation and exploration. I think that is
> particularly applicable to the current conversation, as evidenced by
> the seemingly self evident notion being professed not just in this
> thread but in the practicing community in general, that there is a
> line to be drawn between science and faith, and that the two are some
> how in opposition.
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, mandrake wrote:
>
>> Ken et al
>>
>> Any chance that you might summarise what they have to say that is so
>> crucial?
>> I thought Daniel's post was reasonable enough
>> - for me personally magick _is_ more
>> about religion and theology than some form of pseudo-science -
>> some of the arguments from quantum mechanics etc., leave me a bit cold.
>> Not to say religious views haven't opened the way to some
>> naturalistic advances -
>> so for example the Tamil Siddhas developed a medical system in order
>> to keep
>> their bodies healthy so they could write more poetry -
>> but it was a spin off not the essence of what they were doing.
>>
>> Mogg
>>
>> smiling and not grumpy
>>> Where is Phil Hine when you need him...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Daniel Harms wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the virulence of discussion on these topics has to do with how
>>>> much people have internalized the rationalistic view of the world. The
>>>> more I hear skeptics and practitioners debate about whether magic
>>>> "really" exists in scientific terms, the more it seems to be using a
>>>> commonly-recognized paradigm as an attempt to bring about
>>>> validation of
>>>> personal experiences and worldviews. As most people involved choose to
>>>> ignore that aspect, debates are highly contested and rarely lead to
>>>> the
>>>> resolution of the stated or unstated goals.
>>>>
>>>> I find science to be a particular method (with formal and informal
>>>> components) of understanding the world that works well for some topics
>>>> and not so well for others. I seriously doubt that magic as it is
>>>> currently understood will ever be validated by science, but I could
>>>> very
>>>> well be wrong. I do think that certain phenomena and aspects of magic
>>>> are open for study, but whether that validates magical paradigms as a
>>>> whole is open to debate. On the whole, what science "proves" is of
>>>> intellectual interest to me and nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Dan Harms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
|