Deconstructing Pagan Authoritarianism, Part 3

Urgh, it seems my fate is to always fall behind in producing a new part on this essay. I have so many projects on my plate, not to mention readings I want to do, that finding the time to sit down and clear my head of any other distractions for an hour or so to be more difficult.

But there I am, at last, getting on with it. In this section of the essay, I want to respond to Eran's proposed rebuttals of 'trollish' arguments. Eran's arguments is that trolls “misuse” Pagan principles in order to get their own way. However, I want to talk a little about the format of his argument before we deal with what he actually says.

Eran uses a structure known to advertising types as the “but” sales pitch. I like this, mainly because it allows me to say “butt” in polite company and have a reason for doing so. But more importantly, it takes advantage of how people process arguments. By placing the supposed detractions to an argument first, then responding, what sticks most in the mind is the rebuttal, not the original claim. It also means he can frame the argument in terms he prefers, he can create “strawmen” and proceed to tear down these logical fallacies, misrepresenting very real arguments. It is quite an underhanded method, in fact, and is done precisely to mislead and persuade you via irrational means to accept his worldview. Just keep this attempt at manipulation in mind.

I'm going to structure my response along good old Hegelian Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis lines because of this. I will contrast both his claims as to what a trollish argument is and his reply, and critically assess both. As far as I know, this method only has a place within philosophy, and not advertising, and so will counteract the previous structure. Assuming there are any common truthes to be found at all.

Eran gives his usual spiel and recap of the last chapters – his tedious “understanding” of a troll and his even more laughable 'trollspotting guide' and then reminds people how trolls love to abuse Pagan principles in order to cover their actions. To which I reply, “o rly?” Eran admits they can be very convincing to large amounts of people, which makes me suspicious. If they are convincing to “other members of the local Pagan community, and to other members of larger Pagan umbrella organizations. They can even sound convincing to you, as their target.” then perhaps, just maybe, there is merit to what is being said?

But no Eran suggests ignore anything like rational thought and instead steam ahead, before letting doubt set in. After all, if you're going to be dead wrong, at least you can say you were certain in your convictions. Which, as we know, makes everything alright.

Anyway, this predictably brings us to the actual arguments themselves, so here they are, presented next to each other for easier comparison.

“Catch a troll in a lie, and the troll will go on about subjective realities, and how things "felt" a certain way to the troll, and you have no right to impose your personal perceptions of reality upon those of the troll. Don't Pagans value the subjective perceptions of all people? You'll also be told not to impose your ethics upon the troll. Don't trolls have as much right as you do to create their own sense of ethics? Don't Pagans value the idea of encouraging individuals to construct their own ethical guidelines, their own means of contact with Divinity? “

“If the troll claims privileges based on subjective realities or personal ethics, or any of the other Pagan principles which rely on the sanctity of the individual, always keep in mind: those principles apply to you as well. The perceptions of the individual matter, and are valued, and each person must act in ways consistent with that person's sense of ethics and of contact with the Gods. Which means you, too, have the right to act upon your perceptions and ethics. If you perceive someone as dishonest and untrustworthy and destructive, then act in ways appropriate to those perceptions, and to the ethical principles you value. Do not let the troll dictate perceptions or ethics to you. “

OK then. Assumption one is that the troll is in fact lying. The simple fact is how we perceive and give meaning to events is subjective, insofar as we are limited by personal, sociological, economic, historical and biological factors, as well as access to information. This is a simple fact. Ask any lawyer who has cross-examined a few eye-witnesses to a crime and you'll soon see how perceptions of events can widely vary.

However, this does not mean that all perceptions or views have equal value, or are equally valid. Only the most insipidly cretinous New Age moron would argue such thing. If someone misperceived a comment or situation, then it is your duty, in order to resolve the conflict, to try and explain what exactly was happening. Understanding people have a different point of view does not mean agreeing with them, however it is the first step in defusing problems.

Also, you don't have the right to impose your perceptions of reality on other people. Unless that person is actively trying to harm someone, maybe. In such a case, restraining them may be in the interest of everyone, but otherwise...well, lets put it this way. From reading the original trollish statement, it seems to say that “I feel this way or that way about [x]”. However, from that, Eran infers the right to act on such beliefs, which is not supported by the original statements at all.

To me, it looks like Eran is reducing the situation to a point where just about any position can be valid. In other word, the truth becomes meaningless, and all that matters is the power one wields, which effects the extent to which one can impose their worldview on the other. And since this is about Coven leaders versus lowly members, uh, trolls, it gives them all the advantages. All views are equal, so all that remains to solve the dispute is the quanta of power held by the respective parties.

Eran's final statements show exactly how much he values conflict resolution. He is actively going out of his way to cause conflict and clearly has no real desire to 'solve' it, except by exercising his powers over the individual in question. Conflict resolution relies on a certain amount of synthesis of opposing viewpoints, whereas this subscribes to the “separate but equal” principle.

“If you're reluctant to accept the word of a troll who's lied to you in the past, you'll be accused of not approaching that troll with the level of love and trust you really should have. Don't these ideals mean you must accept what the troll tells you? Don't they mean you must forgive and forget? “

“The love and trust we're "supposed" to feel toward each other is not supposed to be blind. It needs to be appropriate, and precisely in keeping with the nature of whatever you're dealing with. You may have perfect love and trust for a rabid mongoose. That doesn't mean you'll treat it as you would treat a housecat. It means you'll treat it as a perfectly rabid mongoose, and take the steps which are perfectly appropriate in dealing with it. You'll trust it to act like a mongoose. If someone lies to you repeatedly, you are being cruel - to yourself, to your Coveners, to your Gods, and, ultimately, to the person - if you refuse to treat that person as a habitual liar. “

Again with pseudospeciation. He really does love to paint people he doesn't like as some sort of crazy animal (and conversely, people he does like as meek housepets). And he seems to advocate treating people according to some sort of double standard. One rule for people who are meek and controllable, another for people who are not...

Interesting. See, I've run sites with much tougher crowds than any Pagan covens (imagine thirty people like me, all in one place) and I've found the best way to lead is by example and fairly. The rules apply equally to everyone, or they are not rules, only a system of control. And to be honest, if you need more than a few rules, you have some serious control freak issues, or are unable to deal with deviations from your idea of how a coven should be. Love doesn't come into the equation at all. Its as simple as this: am I applying the same standard to this person as to everyone else? Love may not be blind, but justice is, and I'd rather be just and fair in my dealings than go down Eran's route.

“Consider ejecting a troll from your Coven, and you'll run afoul of the Rede's admonition to "harm none." How dare you do such a dreadful thing to a poor troll? Aren't you causing harm, and interfering with the will of another person?”

“The Rede says to "harm none" - and that includes you. By allowing the lies and manipulations of a troll to damage you, you're actively participating in the harm being done to you, to your Coveners, to your Tradition, and to anyone else being affected by the troll. If you refuse to eject a troll from your Coven, you are responsible for the harm done to your Coven from then on. “

We're stretching the definition of harm here somewhat, are we not? I wasn't aware that bruised egos were covered by the Rede, I must have missed that meeting. Both ways, that is. Surely though, if we want to take a broad look at the concept of harm, surely the least harmful solution would be to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of every party? You know, so no-one is harmed, instead of only some people, or one person instead of the majority.

“Some trolls are well versed in the language (but not the meaning) of 12-step programs. Tell a troll to desist in destructive behavior, and you'll be told not to "interfere" in the troll's "recovery program." Aren't Pagans tolerant of all paths? “

“By allowing the troll to continue harmful actions without consequences, you're engaged in what 12-step programs call "enabling". Sometimes, someone addicted to drugs or alcohol is protected by friends and family members - they might make excuses for the person at work, or bail the addict out of jail, or, through a sense of love and loyalty, they might try to protect the addict from the harmful effects of his or her own actions. But this only encourages self- (and other-) destructive behavior to continue. And that does more harm. Yet you don't really want to impose your will on others else by attempting to control their actions. The solution is straightforward: "You can act however you want - but not around me." If a troll tries to spring 12-step jargon on you, just invoke "tough love" and tell the troll to take his or her recovery program elsewhere. “

I probably shouldn't say what I think of 12-steppers here. If you really want to know, I suggest checking out some of Ivan Stang's rants, it's pretty much along those lines.

Furthermore, I've never come across this excuse, not even once. To me, it looks like Eran doesn't want covens to be the focial points of mutual support groups – that allowing an addict in would cause more headaches for him than it would solve, and that they should be ejected because he doesn't want to deal with them. Its like in the last chapter, the person who needs support. He doesn't want to have to deal with that. Equally, he doesn't want to help them and cares nothing for their self destructive behaviour, so he tells them to get lost.

“Do as ye will and harm none?” More like “don't die where I might have to clear up your mess, and shove off”. Harm through inaction is a very real thing, but apparently is not worth mentioning.

“Tell a troll that certain destructive behaviors are simply not tolerated in your Coven, and you'll suddenly become authoritarian and inflexible and overcontrolling. Pagans are opposed to authoritarianism, aren't they? “

“Is this authoritarian? Certainly not. No one is required to stay in your Coven. People who are there, are there by choice. Consenting adults and all that. As a Coven Leader, you have every right to run your Coven however you feel is proper, and other people have the right to participate or not, as they feel is proper. Authoritarianism can only happen where there is some means of compulsion. There can be no authoritarianism where there is assent, and no one stays in your Coven unless they personally choose to do so. You don't have the right (or the power!) to control others. But as a Coven Leader, you do have the right (and the responsibility!) to set the ground rules for your Coven. On the other hand, a troll has no right to force you to allow the troll to remain in contact with you, or with your Coveners. A troll has no right to dictate what behavior is acceptable in your Coven, and what behavior is not. Those are rights which you hold. “

Pagans are against authoritarianism? This is news to me. Is this like the way the Bush administration is in favour of freedom? Also, Eran is inflexible and authoritarian. The entire reason for this essay to legitimize the use of power by the Coven leader to get rid of people they don't like. Eran nowhere shows he believes in compromise or resolution of conflicts, he believes in the ejecting of people who are too annoying, to his worldview, to deal with. That's pretty much the definition, Eran baby.

But lets deal with some of Eran's claims in detail, because they interest me, in a perverse way. He believes that because you chose to join the Coven, of your own free will, you are consenting to his leadership. However, this doesn't deal with misrepresentation, miscommunication and changes in leadership or rules over time. If you have no control over those contract changes, or are unaware of them through no fault of your own, then are you really responsible for them?

Eran believes there is only authoritarianism where there is compulsion. This might be news to all those psychologists who have been studying the Authoritarian Personality, where it can appear without the person in question having any form of power at all. Furthermore, Eran clearly does have power. He can expel people from a coven against their will, which is compelling them to leave.

Moreover, authoritarianism does involve a certain amount of consent. As a social phenomenon, it is divided between those who lead and those who follow. Those who refuse to do either form a third party, those who refuse to have an assigned role in this dominant-submissive relationship. Furthermore, the problem may not be with the coven, but only the leader. I myself have been in such a situation more than a few times. I liked the people I was there with, but the person in charge was a raging asshole. Kind of like Eran. In such a situation, agitating against the leadership while staying a member is the most likely, obvious and right course to take. Unless you think you should sell out your friends to ass-kiss a leader.

Through threats and promises, the classic carrot and stick approach, coven leaders obviously do have power over others in the coven, and can use a number of tricks to control their members. He could threaten to expel people, give promises of certain positions or coveted duties to others...an imaginative leader certainly has ways to maintain their authority within a group. Power purely means the ability to get others to accept your interests, and by that standards, there are many ways to maintain control over a group of people, even if legal recourse to methods of control do not exist.

Also notice a troll has no rights to force people to stay in contact with them, but Eran does have the right to dictate what behaviour is or is not acceptable. An interesting double standard. If its a right, but not one that everyone has, then it's not really a right, is it? I believe we have a word for such rights, and they are privileges. Because Eran is the leader, he can set rules of conduct and who you can or cannot deal with. It all just sounds a tad cultish, not to mention obviously betraying a belief in rank and control.

“If you express an opinion the troll doesn't care for, you'll be labeled a One-True-Wayist and possibly even compared to an Inquisitor or Pope or some such. Pagans are opposed to enforced dogma; how dare you push your ways onto others?”

“Are you a One-True-Wayist simply because you express an opinion? Of course not! Charges of authoritarianism or One-True-Wayism are simply absurd in any Pagan context. We have no way of enforcing belief, nor of compelling practice. Any Pagan who doesn't like the beliefs of practice of someone else is always free to go elsewhere, or to stop associating with the person with whom they disagree. A person who makes public accusations of authoritarianism or One-True-Wayism is, beyond doubt, a troll who is simply trying to stir anger toward a target. Ignore such tactics when directed at others, and when they're directed at you, don't give them a thought. Charges of One-True-Wayism are made simply in an attempt to embarrass you and get you to shut up. Indeed, they are examples of the troll trying to force his or her opinions onto others. The troll is trying to silence a point of view with which he or she disagrees! Who is the actual One-True-Wayist here?”

Needless to say, there is absolutely no way you could compare this to Eran calling people he doesn't like trolls, just to discredit them.

As for enforcing belief or compelling practice....well, I think I dealt with that in the previous section. However, I'd like to add a little something here. Historically, expulsion was the punishment for political offences against the Polis, or city-state. It dated back to the times when humans were hunter-gatherers, where a single person would quite likely succumb to the elements once they had been cut off from the tribe, or less enlightened times, when foreigners would often not be welcome in their new society. And while out attitudes and ability to survive without a tribe have leapt far ahead, our hard-wiring and basic instincts have not. The fear of exile, of expulsion, is one that is very hard for many people to overcome, and still instils a level of fear at a pre-rational level.

And how is describing the underlying theme of an argument or a viewpoint equal to attempting to censor someone? I, and indeed countless others, are merely pointing out that this is authoritarian. If you are fine with authoritarianism, then great, that's your problem and not mine. However, it has to be said, lots of people do have issues with authoritarianism, so its likely they would want to be told if you could detect this sort of thinking via statements etc. After all, you're not trying to force your value judgement, or any sort of action, merely by pointing out how things are now. And if you do propose an action, from a position of no authority, how do you enforce it?

That's all of Eran's points and counterpoints, however, there is a further section to this essay you will have to suffer before we conclude this section. This is the section on (please don't laugh) 'Healthy Self-doubt'.

“It is healthy and it is important to question yourself. A Coven Leader who never doubts his or her own actions and decisions is a dangerous person whom it would be wise to stay away from. But a Coven Leader who allows self-doubt to prevent effective and necessary action is equally dangerous. Yes, re-examine your understanding of ethical issues, frequently and deeply. Don't assume you're always right, lest you cast yourself into the role of an infallible Pope willing to burn others for mere disagreement. (In fact, a refusal to question oneself is one of the hallmarks of a troll!) But equally, don't refuse to make decisions, just because others might disagree with them.”

Is that so? But I thought the purpose of a troll was to “cause you to hesitate or to be unsure of yourself at a time when what you need is self-confidence.” So should you question yourself, or not? I am getting mixed signals here.

As for a lack of introspection or questioning...hmm, sounds more like a leader than a troll to me. A troll who constantly questions their external world isn't likely to delineate between their external and internal curiosity, are they? You'd also hope someone who questioned their own actions might question why they continually put forward incoherent and contradictory arguments to support their position.

“Coven Leaders have the responsibility to take what steps are necessary to protect their Covens. That's one of their primary jobs. Coveners rely on them, and expect them, to do this. It is not a power seized unjustly or arbitrarily; it is a power granted by the Coveners, by virtue of them asking to join - and to remain in - the Coven. If you let a troll manipulate you by playing on your self-doubts, you're falling down on your responsibilities to people who have trusted you with their spiritual growth. Indeed, this inappropriate manipulation of healthy self-questioning is yet another example of trollish misapplication of important Pagan principles! “

I don't expect a leader to do anything except perhaps concentrate more on the group dynamic than the average person and try to look to overall goals and aims, instead of purely personal ones. And even then that only depends on the sort of group I have joined. I may only expect them to buy some decent coffee for the next meeting, depending on who they are.

Your job is not to protect anyone. You are not the person to decide who is a threat, who is not and how to deal with them. If your group is strong and open, it will, on its own, regulate against real threats and and not require your leadership or support in dealing with them.

But of course, Eran wants to play the paternalistic role against the evil outsiders. No-one else in the Coven is capable, which allows for him to use his powers to expel individuals as he sees fit.

And how exactly does Eran know that all coven leadership is granted by the Coven? Sure, leadership is a social fiction, that relies on a certain level of acceptance of the roles given. But if it is not explicit, if the leader is not elected, and there are difficult (or no) methods for their removal, then it is illegitimate. Furthermore, if power is exercised in an unjust way, then the leadership is just as illegitimate as if it had been put in power without consent. Consent of the majority for leadership does not give you carte blanche to treat a minority or individual as you please. You should really consider reading some John Stuart Mill at some point, hopefully then you'd realize how much of an idiot you sound when you don't think these things through.

“What you need here is to be clear on these principles in your own mind. Give careful thought to these issues, and do your best to understand them thoroughly. But the time to engage in such introspection is not during a period of crisis. Solve these questions in your own mind before they become issues argued by a troll. "Solving" does not mean you never come back to them. It's useful and productive to come back to these issues again and again, and to let your view of them expand and grow as time goes on. But when there's someone actively tearing your Coven apart, it's time for direct action, action based on preparations and understandings you've already achieved. Afterwards, there'll be time to reassess and improve your understandings further. People grow by making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes. Don't be afraid to let yourself make some mistakes. Take the actions you feel are right, and then learn from them.”

Being certain is better than being right. Feelings are better guides than actual knowledge. Oh please. You may as well just say “think with your gut!” and get it over with. Because we know, acting on principles that may have little or no relation to reality can never go wrong, can it? And how would Eran know if he's made a mistake, if he expels someone for no reason (like we established in the previous section). He never gets feedback on the effect of his actions, so he can never KNOW if he has done the right thing or not.

“Have frequent discussions within your Coven about matters such as this, so your Coveners understand the issues as thoroughly as you do. If a troll begins to present misapplied principles as excuses for unethical behavior, you want your Coveners to see through those tactics as well. Again, don't argue these points with the troll. In a Coven situation, that only prolongs the pain. Get rid of the critter, and then afterward you'll have all the time you need to de-brief with your Coveners. “

“Chuck the troll, use this guide as a check-list of reasons as to why it had to be done. Don't forget to teach them the principles in this guide, so they will agree when they see some uppity git we need to get rid of.”

Or, I don't know, you could let them see all the information for themselves and let them draw their own conclusion? But then again, I don't feel the need to act like a parent towards anyone in the groups I belong to. I treat them like equals, who can make up their minds, without having the ground adequately prepared beforehand to get the result I want.

“In larger settings - formal churches and umbrella groups - things get a little more complicated, because you usually have to present a case to some council or governing board in order to get rid of a troll. There, it's possible for the troll to bollix up the works by raising these issues, and insisting they get argued out before an expulsion vote is taken. Handling his situation is a topic for anther time; for now, just keep in mind that any Pagan organization should 1) discuss these issues long before a crisis takes place so they're already thoroughly understood, and 2) have rules of procedure in order to stay on topic during discussions about possible disciplinary actions. “

Indoctrination is an ugly word, isn't it? This isn't quite it, but its an attempt to create a consensus around the driving ideas behind this essay, even before a problem arises. By managing the perceptions of the problem, it becomes so much easier to frame it in terms like this essay does, and advocate the same stupid, pointless punishments this essay does.

Oh joy.

I think I finally figured something out...

OK, so this could all be hangover cynicism talking, but hang with me. I think I have fnally figured out why even normally sympathetic/progressive/net-based news sites and journalists will not touch the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Now, we all know why the mainstream will not touch it. That's fairly obvious. The right wing mainstream media considers anything that paints El Presidente in bad light as liberal propaganda in the first place, and as for the supposed left wing mainstream (more accurately, neo-liberal. Eris I hate how political meanings have been warped by media discourse) are part of another conspiracy entirely, that of keeping the status quo dynamic. The 9/11 Movement, true or not, represents a narrative dangerous to the staus quo, and so is ignored as much as possible, in the same way any political opinions outside of the liberal/conservative framework are.

But these smaller, more politically aware news networks, what about them? After all, many of them espouse viewpoints quite frequently which lay on the outside of American politics. So why would they avoid such a topic?

Its because 99% of the 9/11 Truth Movement are pure, unadulterated, assholes.

Lets put it this way. Since they have started to put on protests and organize themselves (its come a long way since Loose Change) they have managed to get mentions on some alternative news outlets. Most of it has been critical, it must be said. Some has been derisory, to be sure. But instead of stating their arguments, in considered and careful ways, building pieces of evidence upon others and building a theory of what actually happened that day, most prefer instead to repeat some "factoid" about the tower collapse and then brand the person in question as a secret dupe of the power elites and a moron at best, or a willing agent and gatekeeper of the media at worst. No matter their past record for standing up to the powers that be.

For example, consider the cases George Monbiot, Noam Chomsky and Matt Tiabbi, all journalists with a long history of considered thought and political agitation, in one form or another. The minute they disagreed with the 9/11 Truth Movement, for whatever reason, they are labelled as controlled assets of some nefarious hidden power.

Way to show intelligent and reasoned debate, guys. You sure showed everyone else you aren't a crackpot fringe movement, with your excellent command of logical argument. Aren't smear campaigns pretty much what the likes of President Bush and Tony Blair get up to, when they dont like someone?

That is precisely the problem with dealing with these people. If you disagree, you will be buried under a mountain of accusation, slurs and lies. Not to mention shrill and threatening emails. What sort of journalist wants to put up with that sort of shit, especially when he or she can cover topics which don't consider them accessory to what, if its true, would be one of the biggest crimes in modern history?

There is also the other thing...an entire mountain of data you have to plow through, and analysis of said data being done by people who are not experts in the field. Look, when it comes to engineering, I don't take anything as a common sense argument. At all. My father was an engineer, and while my math skills are adequate enough to keep up, when someone goes through and explains things, before then I take nothing for granted, because most engineering is only expected to work within certain parameters. So when people say "obviously this isn't true because the towers would... its not actually that obvious. Explain. With reference to past examples. You know, do some research. Common sense and physics do not always make great bedfellows, depending on the common sense of the individual in question.

And there is so much data out there. And conflicting data, from debunkers, that to actually look at it all and come up with a reasoned conclusion would require months of research. I know, I thought I could skim read the topic myself, a while back. Oh poor deluded me.

Anyway, its time for coffee and ibuprofen again. One saving grace of my blog readership is that it is probably small enough to avoid a legion of 9/11 Truther's descending on this place and painting me as a paid shill of the Conspiracy (I wish. When I did work, indirectly, for the RAND Corporation, all they paid for was my coffee bill for the afternoon meetings). I hope people will note I actually avoided talking about the truth of the 9/11 conspiracies, because that is not what I am questioning here. Its the conduct of the believers of these conspiracies and how their actions alienate them from pretty much everyone, forcing them into a paranoic mindset where the world is filled with enemy agents, instead of disgruntled journalists who don't want the hassle of having to deal with thousands of assholes.

Magickal debates

There have been a couple of these lately, both on POEE and EB&G. While this probably means little outside of the context of the threads themselves, I still thought some of the insights and discussions on the topics were well worth sharing.

I have to admit my own personal biases run towards psychological models in this, but it seems a fair few other people thought the same so...well, anyway, here is some cut and paste of the more interesting sections. I think the most important lesson we learned from this debate, along with most philosophical topics, is to define your terms.


Cydira: Ok, there's alot of people out there in the pagan community talking about spells and energies and alot of other things like that. listen to 'em and it sounds like you're trapped in D&D or LARP hell, especially if you get the one's that are deep into the whole trend of communicating with other entities which are generally accepted as mythical (fairies, dragons, etc.). it's almost enough to make you wonder if the pagan community is populated mainly with semi-functional schizophrenics or people suffering with some other neurological disorder.

I have seen and experienced somethings that stand outside of the realm of typical daily experiences. This is not something that makes me crazy, rather, it has made me inclined to accept evidence presented to me upon the basis of either my own personal experiences (because some of these things I wouldn't have believed if I hadn't seen 'em myself) or if the evidence is presented in a manner that is sufficiently persuasive. as such, i've found that many of the people who claim to have experiences such as sexual encounters with animals or spiritual entities while they are tranformed into a different being are highly suspect. few, if any of the accounts, have been presented in a persuasive enough method to convince me to believe them.

this said, i do not expect anyone to believe me. what i describe here is a result of my own personal experience, occult research, and what i have observed as trends in the occult research of others. you can call bullshit on this and that's ok. what i put forth here is a theory. theories can be accepted or disregarded on the basis of evidence presented. i will apologize if my phrasing is such that it does not adhere to the conventions of presenting a scientific theory. this is in part because i'm a bit rusty on that and in part because the subject matter doesn't exactly bode well to that presentation format.


LMNO: Please try not to conflate the vague scientific term "energy" with the vague psychological term "energy". It tends to piss off the scientists. Neither have been properly defined. You might as well say "aether waves". Even "orgone" has been better defined that either of those.


Buddhist Monk Wannabe: This is interesting, because it goes back to the whole idea that magic is just something that you can do that other people don't know how to do. I don't call it casting spells, but I use meditation/visualization in much the same way.


Cydira: direct observation of magic is exceptionally difficult, especially when one is working with these 'energies' ascribed to objects, emotions, etc. indirect observation is somewhat easier.

an example of this can be given in something i've done in the past on several occasions.

there is a route that my husband and i drive to go visit our friends. traveling at the posted speed limit (65 mph, using cruise control) with favorable road conditions (fair weather, clear road conditions, and no traffic hazards), we can make the drive in 2 hours. when i concentrate on arriving in an hour and a half rather then 2 hours, i 'bend' time.

the conditions are the same as above and the time has not only been measured by myself, but also by others who are informed when we leave our home. i've yet to test this under other road conditions, but thus far, this has yielded the same result for about 75% of the trials done over the last few years. (the trip is a semi-monthly trip, so i regularly have the opportunity to do this little experiment.)

some may say that i've manipulated the energies around me to 'bend' time. i'm disinclined towards that argument. i think that it operates differently. unfortunately, i've to figure out a good way to phrase my theory before i post it. give me a little time and i'll have it posted up here.


Singer: Like you... I am offended by the over-use of the term "energy". I believe "energy" in all it's categories is quantifiable and measurable. I believe that all life-forms create quantifiable and measurable energy as a necessary product of living. In fact I think I plunged into this thread with a fairly lengthy treatise on how to measure the electrical energy of thought.

I'm all about the potential application of personally generated energy. It seems reasonable to me that the bars of the BIP are maybe bent a little when someone or something (like a "healer", or a "placebo") triggers a mechanism by which an individual can bypass their own BIP to effect a desirable outcome... one that would not be as easy or possible without the help of the trigger.

This concept may have broader implications than the purely personal.

But, we'll never know as long as we keep saying "well... it doesn't seem possible so it's not worthy of serious study"... especially since this leaves ANY study of "magical" phenomenon to the tin-foil hat brigade...


Rev Burnstoupee: so maybe science takes an objective approach to understand the universe, and religion/mysticism/magick takes a subjective approach. it seems silly to try and describe a religious/mysical/magickal experience in terms of objective reality. take certain 'methods' for enlightenment for instance. often times one method flat out contradicts another method. its not because one is 'true' and one is 'false'. one method that works for one person might not work for another becasue of the variation of the qualities and experiences of the mind. so to discuss 'energy' in terms of a magical subjective experience can only be metaphorical. that isn't to say that it doesn't "work". take kundalini energy, the 'energy centers' and the two 'psychic pathways that travel up and down the spine. now they're not really THERE...but in terms of a method they are used AS IF they were there. and apparantly there have been achievable results. nothing i can personally attest to and i wouldn't expect a scientist to be able to measure any of that, but the practicioner seems to be different than before. it's like the tree of life isn't an actual TREE, ya know?

i need a :barstool: and a drink to match. at least alcohol is objective.


Ratatosk: Magic, in my experience appears as the change of perception through conscious will. That is, the conscious manipulation of filters and programs which process the data that our senses pick up. This includes not only relatively simple things like RAW's "Quarter Experiment" where focusing on quarters leads to finding more quarters... but also complex things like body language, reactions of other people etc.

In more depth, I generalize magic into multiple types:

Perception Manipulation (Modificaton of which bits of reality to focus on)
Personality Manipulation (Invocation of Godforms, archetypes etc)
Programming Modification (Metaprograming, NLP)
Program Creation (Egrigores, NLP, "Spellcasting")
Comfort (Ritual)

I'm sure there may be a thousand other ways to generically classify different forms of "magic", but I hope the above gives you an idea of what I mean.

It appears to me, that magic was simply a model created without the advantage of modern neurology, one that we can replace to some extent with modern scientific models. However, and this is only my opinion, while we can discuss the theory in both magical and scientific terms, the magical model seems more useful in practice... probably due to the difference between 'the road we can speak about and the road that we walk upon'.

As for the quantum model discussed earlier, I have given this much thought. Quantum mechanics, in my opinion are useful when discussing magic in one very important fashion. Quantum mechanics give us an example of a very useful model which seems magical to most people. It discusses things in symbols which kind of relate to reality, but not really. Our concept of what an atom looks like is symbolic.

Magic, I think could be seen in a similar vein. It's a different model used to discuss concepts which may be very hard to otherwise discuss or attempt to implement.

Cainad: So we're talking about two (or possibly more) rather different phenomena here. Allow me to make a very clumsy attempt to distinguish them, so some of you smart-alecks out there can point out the flaws in my explanation and clarify it for everyone else.

First off, we have "magic," the thing that is supposedly indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology. This is very true, but only if you haven't got the slightest fucking clue how that technology works. If you know how to use or make something of high technology, then that makes you a magician to the ignorant, but you know yourself, at best, only as a technician. A dude in a robe who throws fireballs around or summons demons by drawing circles with wonky symbols around it, a shmoe who wears a suit and makes things appear and disappear for the amusement of his audience, and a guy who can kill people instantly by pointing a funny-shaped metal tube at them and pulling a trigger are all 'magicians' to someone (like, say, Pacific Islanders before encountering Westerners), but to themselves they are merely using or applying something that they know and understand perfectly well.

Mahdgjickque, on the other hand, is the attempt to produce effects of the 'magical' variety (whatever those may be, according to the nature and level of one's understanding of the world) without involving too much sciencey-sounding or applied technological stuff. These may be fireballs without fireworks, visions without schizophrenia, or even as internal as mind alterations without lobotomies. At the most basic level, it is an attempt to impose the Will (what we want) on the world without going through all the complicated, impractical, and/or dangerous steps normally required to make these things happen, if they are possible at all. Mahdgjickque is what happens when we cease to be content with seeing magic happen, and we decide to try and become the magicians.

So what I might be trying to say is that 'magic' and 'mahdgjickque' are the reflecting and non-reflecting sides of a two-way mirror. Studying mahdgjickque is the equivalent of putting your face really close to the mirror's reflecting side and blocking out the glare with your hands so you can see what's on the other side of it. Maybe, we tell ourselves, if we get really good at mahdgjickque we can figure out how to get on that side of the glass.


Cain: Well, this is why we need to define our terms in order to speak about this in any sensible way. English is well known for its multiple homonyms and if you are using one with an already pre-accepted meaning which is different from what you mean, then we are going to have problems. I can, quite easily, accept a psychological model of what is being proposed here. A metaphysical one is alot more difficult, however. If we don't say from the outset what we are talking about, then natually the majority of people are going to go for the most obvious explanation and conclusion - that you are talking about magic in the sense of Charmed and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and proceed to mock you.

This furthermore isn't helped by people in the 'occult community' who themselves cannot seem to agree what they are tallking about. Which is fine, to a degree, because neither can Discordians about chaos, and they seem to get on with it fine. But when you have Wiccans and Ceremonial Magickiqians rubbing shoulders with people advancing a more believable and approachable theory, you are always going to have some serious problems. Furthermore, some of these people who don't accept the usual mumbo-jumbo about spirits and demons will then proceed to use badly understood scientific models to try and 'prove' their theories, which is pretty much as bad as the imaginary monsters, when confronted by someone who understands the models being discussed.

Now, for the technology example, I don't buy that at all. Why? The examples we have are of people who are utilizing processes that at least some other people know, and can explain with reference to established natural laws, to make repeatable results. The "can explain" bit is important, because while you could claim all the rest apply to mahadqickians, they fall down on explanations that can be verifiably tested (and often on repeatable results as well). Using a fighter jet is substansially different to evoking Ares, for example.

Again, I'm not down with the "faith" business either. I've seen enough fanatics who fervently believe in something, with the sort of faith which you could break rocks on (and trust me, it was tempting to test this). The point is, despite their faith, that alone cannot change anything outside of themselves, and often little inside themselves either, once that state is reached. Its an end state, not a process used to achieve a goal, and I think the consesnus is that magique, whatever it is, is for doing stuff with.

In fact, I was listening to my podcasts I have again last night, and I'm not sure who said this (it may have been Chris Titan on Occulterati, but I'm not sure. It could have been Curcio as well) but they came up with a brilliant explanation. Magick is pulling the wool over your own eyes, and then being able to do that to other people, in order to achieve your goals. Or words to that effect. He was explaining how he got really deeply into biology, Sumerian mythology, psychology, Hermetics etc and how using all these different lenses or ways of looking at the world, allowed him to convince himself first that he could change himself, and thus how he interacted with the world, and then later on being able to cause that change in other people too. Which is a nice blend of the psychological/sociological arguments put forward, and also a nice lock-in with NLP.


Bonsai Ent: "magic is the Will expressing itself against the physical universe and bringing about a change"

"why that is no different to me going downstairs and making a cup of tea!"

"yes"

"accept mine works..."



I could be called a fan of the Derren Brown, or indeed Granny Weatherwax school of magick.
Better known as the "if you want something done, do it" school.

I think the social/psychological magick is closer to theatre than anything else, one could use the drama of magic to bring about psychological changes, make oneself more confident, feel strong, feel attractive... I've been trained in drama and we've gotten quite good at it. What is the Method but Reality Tunnel shifting at the drop of a hat?

My only criticism here, is why call it "magic". Again, it seems to me sticking to the aesthetic, it is just role-playing and escapism.

Nothing inherently wrong with it, I just don't buy it.


Ratatosk: The difference that I've found exists in the idea that we're dealing with different models. When I'm looking at information using a scientific model, I use the terms appropriate for a scientific model. When I'm playing in a philosophical model, I use the terms appropriate for that model. When I put on a Christian hat, I use the terms used by people who live in that model of reality. When I play with 'magic' I use the terms that are used in that model.

Just as an earlier post misused the scientific quantum model, some people misuse the 'magic' model. Some people think that quantum physics means that there is no reality until we look for it, that doesn't mean that there's a problem with QP, only that there's a confusion in their ability to read the map. The same seems true for 'magic'. In every model of magic that I've studied, (Wicca, Thelema, Chaos Magic) there's no discussion of rabbits in hats, or sleight of hand... no fireballs getting thrown from bellies, no flying etc etc etc, in almost all of the cases, we're dealing with metaphors which are more aligned with psychological manipulation, rather than manipulation of the physical world.

That's the reason Crowley added the 'k' to magic, to separate the 'stage magic' from the stuff of consciousness change.

We could discuss magic in entirely non-magical terms. I have a great book which is called Mind Hacks, put out by O'Reilly and Assoc. It has experiments and exercises that nearly mirror those in Liber Null and Liber Kaos and The Book of Atem (all chaos magic books). However, (and this depends entirely on one's opinion of how neurology works) it may be much easier to effect changes through some metaphors than others (considering that no matter how direct Mind Hacks tries to be, its still using metaphors).

For me, I play in magic sometimes, not because I think it works, but because I like to examine reality through as many tunnels as possible. It seems to me that we can spend our life looking for THE ANSWER (which may or may not be possible), we might spend our life in one single model/map and experience only the stuff that gets labeled on that map, we could spend our lives asleep like the poor pinks and norms... not even realizing that they're looking at the menu, rather than the meal. For me, I choose to try as many metaphoric restaurants as possible... I don't mind if the Menu is in French, German, English or glowing on a big board behind the cashier. I don't think it will get me closer to THE ANSWER... but I do enjoy getting to experience the different perceptions and ideas used by different people. Further, it means that if I'm talking to a Christian, I can use words, terms... the model, that they are familiar with and sometimes describe new concepts to them using their own map. When I'm talking to an Atheist, the same ma be true. When talking with a Chaos Magician, I can use their metaphors and when talking to a Wiccan, Buddhist or Hindu, I can use their metaphors.

I don't necessarily understand all of those maps as well as a person who spends their entire life looking only at a single model... but I'm ok with that.

The Menu is not the meal. Magic, based on my experiences, references a set of symbols on a particular map. You can choose to not use the map, but that doesn't invalidate the map or its symbols.


Bantu: To avoid any impressions of fawning...that's neither here nor there.

I think you've [LMNO - Cain edit] explained your positions with clarity enough for a layperson to understand and with little room for dispute. Cains last post especially was the icing on the cake.

I've enjoyed reading the all varying opinions and ideas here, cheers to Cyd too.

I've come late to the realization of the elements of Fundamentalism in prevalent in Paganish belief systems. l always thought that one could hold certain 'beliefs' for what they were and then recognize what is measurable scientific theory with ease in these systems. I've seen and experienced some pretty incredible things I don't yet understand or can find explaination for. That doesn't make it manisfestations of supernatural energies. In my 'beliefs' the supernatural is somewhat antithetical.

And UPG covers my ass. Okthxby.


LMNO: Well, one thing I found intersting in this thread was that no one said, "ok, big guy, so what do you think is going on here?"

There was pretty much just an assumption I was like James Randi, and thought it was all bullshit.

So, here goes:

I believe the universe is wierder than science can currently account for. The history of science has shown itself to be islands of knowledge in a sea of ignorance.

I believe that things happen that cannot be explained easily.

I think most forms of "magic" are combinations of yogic practices, NLP, self-hypnosis, the placebo effect, psychology, metaphor, reconstruction of the BIP, self-delusion, and unadultarated bullshit.

I think that people who try to describe the wierd shit in the universe using scientific terms are deluding themselves.

I think the people who "know" that their magic practices create weird shit are making false correspondences.

I think that some people who are adept at certain kinds of magical practices have a greater tendencey to either belive their own metaphors, or see the BIP more clearly.

I think more research is needed in all areas of study that lend themselves to scientific research.

I think people who use fairy tales to make themselves feel better aren't necessarily bad, but also make boring dinner guests.


Cydira: I'm pretty sure that the explanation of why magic works is grounded in a combination of psychology and physics, though I haven't been able to establish what precisely is the reason. I've been trying, but no real success.

I'd like to see one of two things happen. Either a new term needs to be invented to describe the phenomena that results from successful magic, thus leaving the term magic to retain it's socially accepted connotations, or a change in the connotations associated with the term magic. As I highly doubt the second will happen (despite the flailing and other efforts of the Pagan sub-culture among English speakers), I think a new term is needed.

I just don't know what the hell to call this.

The people who oppose the use of the scientific method and decry it as opposed to occult studies are fools, in my opinion. The scientific method is a highly valuable tool that we use on a regular basis. The process of developing a theory, testing it, and evaluating the results is done daily in a wide array of arenas. Sure, we're not dressed in lab coats, running tests on chemicals, recording the results, and submitting papers detailing our findings to any of the scientific publications. But we use this process to evaluate why something isn't working, how to navigate problems that arise in the workplace, and address other quandaries that come up in our lives.

It also forgets something important. The use of the scientific method is a continuation of a long line of occultists's work. It just happens to be accepted into mainstream society and the places where it is used are no longer hidden under a veil of secrecy. One can still argue that rituals are still used in scientific study today. The donning of protective gear and the setup of laboratory equipment is no less an act of ritual then putting on robes and lighting candles. The distinction made is that the use of protective gear and setting up laboratory equipment is viewed as practical and necessary by the general public, where as the rituals of religion and occult studies are viewed as superstition by the general public.

All of that said, I've got to say that there's alot of crackpot occultists out there who irritate the hell out of me. I can't stand the people who lie and insist that one must blindly accept the lie. Outrageous claims are hard to accept, but arguments can be presented to persuade some one. To refuse to attempt that and expect blind faith, it's just something that stinks of a con being pulled on me and I will actively resist it.