As a practitioner, it is hard to know what figures like Randi have to
do with modern magicians who - generally - work for themselves rather
than make claims like Geller (not, as far as I'm aware, an occultist).
Sceptical occultism has been around a while, and many magicians
wouldn't claim objective existence for spirits, higher planes etc. I'm
among those who consider it much easier in practice to behave as if
spirits are real, and thus occupy a supposedly 'subjective' world in
which they are.
Aside from the 'magic for self development' constituency, many
practical occultists get - or believe they get - objective results. As
there is no 'scientific causality' at work, sceptics would generally
say these would have happened anyway - as to all appearances they
often might.
A long chain of coincidences, often bearing deep personal
significance, is capable of being a gratifying life without
constituting - or trying to constitute - 'proof'. More often than not
it is the experiential process that really interests the magician,
rather than the results or proving it is responsible for them. Even
magicians with clients aren't necessarily outside this, a supposed
'subjective universe' can be shared, much as religious folks share
theirs. Personally I'd ditch 75% of modern technology without a qualm,
but cannot imagine abandoning what I consider my magical vocation;
anachronistic as it might appear to many.
That same many are often obsessed with celebrities and their lives, a
poor substitute for the gods and their deeds, while for ecstatic
religion we have following a crap national football team. Also, in far
more meaningful ways, the religious instinct, and magical or mythic
views of life, are an integral part of being human. It is denying that
part of ourselves which obviously doesn't work, while the purely
mechanistic universe of the 'Age of Reason' which displaced magic
temporarily, has already been exploded after a mere two or three
centuries.
ALWays
Jake
On 7 July 2010 21:52, Peter Edwards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I do however feel rather alienated by the 'skeptic' movement, despite
>> admiring James Randi, as I find it is by definition an ideological
>> mindset rather than a truly scientific perspective. I thus find myself
>> in a quandary. Am I a believer or just someone into fanciful ideas?
>> This leads me onto another thought. If magic is 'real', can it be
>> proven? By that, I mean can magical events be quantified, can these
>> results be falsified and can such findings survive vigorous peer
>> review?
>
> I have a lot of time for James Randi, Martin Gardiner et al - given the
> laughable claims made by Uri Geller and his ilk - and am a long time reader
> of The Skeptic.
> However, I find dogmatic "the world is scientific" claims equally laughable.
> It's worth a read
> of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems .
> If "you" construct propositional logical assumptions to "prove" "ideas" then
> you must ask what a priori axiomatic assumptions you make about the
> conception of self and the nature of reality. Can assumptions be fully and
> consistently expressed and argued about in a meaningful and logical manner?
> Can conceptualisations ever represent a unlimited model of experience? If
> not and the model is limited, can it ever be treated as a universal theory
> or usefully applied in a partial way?
> Regards, Peter
--
Jake
http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
|