John Schneider wrote:
> If Magick is not to be subject to the limits of
> Science, then one or the other of these should be different.
The definition of Magick, the art of causing change, is fairly
broad, broad enough to include Science. It also includes
using subjective (i.e. non-scientific) truth. This gives a
tree-like structure:
Magick------+--------- Science
|
+--------- Other (Art, politics, etc.)
Scientists can study "Other", but only a non-scientific species
of Magickian (Artist, Politician, etc.) can practice "Other".
> - Science shows us "how to do it", then talks about theories of
> "why it worked", none of which are to be taken very seriously,
> since all that really matters is: "we know how to do it".
> - Magic explains to us "why it will work", then talks about
> theories of "how to do it", none of which are to be taken
> very seriously, since all that really matters is: "we know
> why it will work."
>
> Open question: is that a fundamentally wrong way of looking at it,
> and if so, then is there any literature available which actually
> shows the reader "how to do magic", and doesn't frog around with
> discussing the "why" until afterword?
IMHO, it's not fundamentally wrong, but it's different from the
definition I've offered. We can call your definition "Magic" and
the one I've provided "Magick".
The only books I know of that teach the subject use symbolic
terms, are poorly written, and take about a year or so of
study to even begin to get the hang of. Sorry. This is one
more reason I'm going to write on the topic. Eva-Lise seems,
to me, to be on the right path with:
> I have been doing a lot of thinking about magic
> recently, which is how I ended up on this list,
> as well as how I ended up in the UU church and
> reading books on myth, satire, and mental illness
> (my idea of studying magic is only getting broader
> as I go).
Lior Golgher wrote:
> A magic which doesn't bring the expected result is
> an absolute failure.
Not always. Failure in one operation can bring
success in another. Also, when the Magickal operation
/is/ an experiment, your critia for experiments
match exactly the criteria for the Magickal operation.
> An experiment which doesn't
> bring the expected result is a success as long as
> its course\sequence is known. A magic which brings
> the expected result without knowing what happened
> is a success. An experiment which brings the expected
> result without knowing what happened is an absolute
> failure
As modified by my statement above, all of this is a
correct description of Magick.
Unfortunatly, I'm no longer able to stay current with
both Virus's mail list and Zero. Something's got to
give and Zero's my baby. Therefore, I'm leaving the
Virus list to devote my time to Zero.
Any questions on this topic can be directed to my
personal e-mail at dleeper@gte.net. In a few months
I should have my system of Magick up on the net at Zero.
Have fun.
-- David Leeper dleeper@gte.net Homo Deus http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/index.htm 1 + 1 != 2 http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/CMath.html