Hello again,
I do not support or reject Uri Geller, I know
very little about him apart from the bits I quoted earlier. I just got the
feeling that he had been conveniently, and universally disposed of, on the basis
of one cock up.
I don't like the way Richard Dawkins is trying
to define atheism in his terms. We only have one thing in common - not
believing in a god - we can't be made into a collective movement based on the
'one thing none of us can do'.
"And of course all idealist philosophizing in these matters
should remember to reconnect to politics and power that infringe upon or even
determine religious and scientific claims anyway" by Jasper.
Regarding this power; who influences who? It
isn't completely a one way street is it? What interest do they have in
reinforcing the notion that esoteric studies are a joke? Are they not human, are
merely just too human?
Marie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:13
PM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic
and empiricism
I believe that Empiricism and Magic are strongly related though
it is not the same to say that Magic IS the same as Science. In my
anthropology thesis in which I have explored Samael Aun Weor's
gnosticism in Argentina, I came across with a strong notion of empiricism
as a way of "proving by yourself" the effects of the exercises suggested
by these teachings.
I wrote about this issue and pointed out as part of
post-postmodernist worldview in which there might occured some kind of
"massification of the scientific methodology" helped by the autonomic and
human potential movement from the second half of 20th century. The whole
hypothesis was based in that the supposedly "disenchantment of the world" in
the first half of the 20th century might leaded up to these autonomy movements
in which was involved and boosted the process of rationalization and
individualization pointed out by Durkheim and Weber.
Sebastian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:21 AM, kaostar
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
sorry this went to just Marie first go, not whole
list
from SSOTBME, Lionel Snell, one of the *best*
books i've ever read about how
to compare science and magic
science hates the fleeting singularity, it revolves around
test-repaet
validity, and magic cannot then be scientific, or often open
to scientific
testing as for the most part it involves one-offs (that is
my clumsy precis,
not a quote - the book is far more elegant)
Randi is as dogmatic and (oddly enough 'religious'- about his
scepticism) as
any pro-psychic powers spokesperson, or as Richard
Dawkins is that there is no
god.
I've spoken to Mr Geller on the
phone and he's among the people i'd put on a
list of 'those who have got
something really special' who i've met. Robert
Lenkiewicz the (late)
artist and probable magician was another. But how to
define that and do
anything with it within a scientific framework? Hard - and
i'm a trained
scientist; started out life in biomedics, which is test, retest,
support
hypothesis stuff...
Dave E
--
"Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of your
selfishness. Listen to it carefully".
-Richard Bach, The Messiah's Handbook.
Ilusions-