 |
 |
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 >> >> >> > >