ilovefuzz.com

I'm lost in this thread. I think some people are using words like "magic" to mean a sense of wonderment, others to mean preternatural, and still others to mean supernatural.

When someone says "magic" I take it to mean that what they are describing, they mean to be - or are proposing as - something outside of the natural. That is I think the common, and understood meaning of the word.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:Opposition gives motivation, no matter what form it takes. Some people create their own drama and problems because in a roundabout way, it gives their conscious selves a meaning to exist. If the church didn't have the devil during the dark ages, how would it have stayed so strong?

This is true, but I have tried stepping off the opposition part and I found that what really motivates me lately is understanding, willingness to learn, evolve, expand.
Opposition without any real exploration of the subjects presented really tires and exhausts me.*

bigchiefbc wrote:I actually really liked the first two chapers of the Satanic Bible. The philosophy and psychology behind it strikes me as sound, sensible, and logical. Then he loses me with the other 2 books. I just don't have that desire for rituals, pomp, and theatrics that so many other human beings do.

Exactly my thoughts.


*Another general rant:

A book/conversation can't give you the knowledge how to play music, it can give you guidelines, but not the experience itself. And guidelines are not knowledge, guidelines are assumptions. First you learn the guidelines, go play the fucking instrument and THEN I can tell you about the details: how to play economically, how to use harmony, progressions and whatnot. I can't teach you about something you're not even willing to explore. I can't tell you about harmony, progressions and how to play better right away - cuz you won't be able to handle yourself with so little knowledge of the subject. And your logic will be useless cuz you have to learn about the subject to be able to develop, then use, musicians logic, right?
Well the same rule applies to.. well, I think everything.
And then think what you're really doing when you're dismissing something as false just because it sounds unreal/illogical/unknown.

And no, you're not allowed to 'pull out' with homeopathy or chemtrails or poltergeists or the holy bible; opinions on that were stated and stand.
We're talking about logic and the proper use of it. Fine-tuning. If you think something is implied, ask if it implied, if you don't know, ask, find out, explore, that's how it works. Preconceptions just fuck things up, and preconceptions don't really show an open mind (but that was kinda obvious).
Details.

Is my logic faulty?
Discuss.

jfrey wrote:I'm lost in this thread. I think some people are using words like "magic" to mean a sense of wonderment, others to mean preternatural, and still others to mean supernatural.

When someone says "magic" I take it to mean that what they are describing, they mean to be - or are proposing as - something outside of the natural. That is I think the common, and understood meaning of the word.

Sensible enough--but a couple of the people in here are using it like Crowley used it:

"What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose."

The more you know...

I'm sorry to post OT here, but I'm very impressed with the level of civility maintained throughout this discussion. Carry on...

blooghost wrote:I'm sorry to post OT here, but I'm very impressed with the level of civility maintained throughout this discussion. Carry on...

I was thinking the same thing just now

D.o.S. wrote:

jfrey wrote:I'm lost in this thread. I think some people are using words like "magic" to mean a sense of wonderment, others to mean preternatural, and still others to mean supernatural.

When someone says "magic" I take it to mean that what they are describing, they mean to be - or are proposing as - something outside of the natural. That is I think the common, and understood meaning of the word.

Sensible enough--but a couple of the people in here are using it like Crowley used it:

"What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose."

The more you know...

Not to be argumentative - and seriously I'm not... I'm just kind of mildly OCD about details - but why even call it magic then? Especially since it's a word that means something that is inherently discrediting.

It's like saying 'a plane stays up in the air by magic.' And then when someone gives you all the reasons that a plane actually does stay in the air, you say 'yeah, that's magic.'

I feel like I'm missing something.

As my friend once said:
"I'm scratching the universe with my nose!"

Achtane wrote:

blooghost wrote:I'm sorry to post OT here, but I'm very impressed with the level of civility maintained throughout this discussion. Carry on...

I was thinking the same thing just now

Unexplained psychic phenomenon, or simply the mathematical law of probability????? /end derail

jfrey wrote:Not to be argumentative - and seriously I'm not... I'm just kind of mildly OCD about details - but why even call it magic then? Especially since it's a word that means something that is inherently discrediting.

It's like saying 'a plane stays up in the air by magic.' And then when someone gives you all the reasons that a plane actually does stay in the air, you say 'yeah, that's magic.'

I feel like I'm missing something.

'coz that's what Crowley called it, and usually when you're discussing someone's work you use their vernacular?

But I don't think that magic is an inherently fluffy word. Magical is a perfectly proper adjective/descriptive noun, especially when you're talking about internalized experiences... i.e. "that sunset is gorgeous!" "yeah, it's pretty magical." or "dude, this cab is so ridiculous, it makes everything sound like magic!"

No I know. What I meant was: why did he choose to make that distinction?

I haven't read any of his stuff, and my book plate is pretty full right now. (I'm in the middle of "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris - which is excellent by the way)

That example is contextually understandable, unlike I think the use of the word in a thread titled "Esoterics // Superstition". That kind of leads to understanding it in a certain way you know?

Depends. I think someone like you or Dev would take it in a way that some of the other posters here wouldn't. Different connotations and all that. Personally, when I read "Esoterics" I think of Stonehenge, druids, and other kinds of marginalized occult/mystic groups.

I'm not all that versed in Crowley--my association with his stuff comes via novelists like Dennis Wheatley.

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with definitions. I do the same thing.

i try to avoid words like "magic" that have multiple interpretations that can mislead precisely to avoid the kind of thing that happened in the last couple of pages.

Reasonable discourse?

See, what I don't get in the last Tim Minchin vid is why can't you get a hard-on for everything he states in his coda, and at the same time think about stuff that goes beyond scientific proof (for the moment, maybe, or forever, doesn't matter) and look for ways to make both things fit?

There are very few things that I believe in and cannot somehow rationally explain. Most of the times my belief came from some sort of epiphany situation. For example I have had the feeling that I was seeing/feeling a ghost on several occasions. There are lots of possible explanations for this, but most of them take something away from my experience and don't seem fitting. States of delusion and the like, I refuse to accept it was that, because of the other circumstances, and because most of the explanations people would spring to seem disrespectful. Proves: I refuse to accept the cliché rational explanations. But I won't accept that I have seen what people would normally call a ghost, the soul of a dead person. Mumbo Jumbo, I totally agree with every sceptic. My life ends when I'm dead, no way around that (and by the way - that's what makes life beautiful & worth living) So what I do is look for a third way, that might merge both viewpoints. Some explanation that would acknowledge that I have actually seen something, that it did not come from my own mind and that it was not a dead person. I have not found one that fully satisfies me. The best I can come up with is that it was some sort of not-conscious telepathy of either someone near me or someone thinking hard about the place I was living in. I find this slightly more credible than the walking soul of someone who has passed away.

I think that psychology is the solution to most of these things, if you imply that human minds are not insular but can pick up much richer communication apart from our conscious knowledge. That is for example mimic and gestural communication but also some sort of "vibe", electromagnetic field or whatever. I actually think that there is a reason that people call when I think of them even though I can't argue with the common explanation that it's statistically totally normal that some time someone would call when you think of them, just that it's then that you notice. Might be right, probably even is, I should have thought of a better example. Damn.

Short injection: I felt slightly offended by the Tim Minchin video, because I felt like I was put in the same boat as "Storm", who by nature is someone despicable to me. So, just to put things right: There will never be tattoos of that sort on me. The people who have read my natal chart have been: A translator, a diplomat, a psychologist, a marine biologist and - well, you can't escape them - one obvious hippie.

Ah, well, two glasses of wine get to me. Here's a definition of magic:

The transformation of perception through a ritual.





I hope you guys are getting this shitty ad about the world class psychic as well, if not I will get out of this discussion, throw up and only post about FUZZ until the day of days.

Cheers

This, for instance, is an amazing (magical ) idea.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett_newsci1.gif
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett_newsci2.jpg

Also, is my logic faulty? I would like someone to test my previous "rant". Seriously.