 |
 |
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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >