Dabbling in 'black' arts

Sapien

mossieh wrote:

Fair enough, but the term 'magic' is quite a loaded one for a sceptic to use, would you agree with that?

Perhaps, but of all groups of people, I would expect sceptics to examine the connotations of terms before getting bogged down in semantic confusion. I tried to clarify clarity from connotations in my use of the word. Perhaps you presumed too much.

mossieh wrote:

Without answers or explanations, what do you have, exactly?

Practice and experience. Skills, techniques and aids. Magic is a heuristic discipline. Physicians are happy to use techniques that work, even when they have no idea how. Magicians similarly (though to a far greater extent). Of course, understanding is helpful in ensuring success and making progress, and perhaps that is what is truly uniques about magic - the difficulty in coming by this underlying understanding.

mossieh wrote:

As a qualified scientist, if it is not answers or explanations you seek, what are you doing it for?

As I said above, many things. I do not go to the gym to seek explanations. (I do not go to the gym at all, but that's not the point.) I do not learn French to understand the Universe - just the French. One doesn't learn basic car maintenance for enlightenment. Magic is practical, and even when theoretical, the thesis is always towards better praxis.

mossieh wrote:

'Lazily'? I was criticised here before for referrring to unquestioning belief in the paranormal as lazy-mindedness. It takes a lot more effort to question than to accept.

That's precisely what I mean. I'm asking you to question your attitude towards magic. You can take it for granted that I've been through the initial questioning that one faces when considering magic and all of it's "connotations". I hope tat's obvious.

mossieh wrote:

I asked you earlier for a specific example of a measurable effect from your use of servitors etc, have you thought of one? Your response to the effect that you could not prove that what you say is true over an internet forum is reasonable and you seem largely like a reasonable person but how about relating an anecdote of just one incident regarding the use of servitors?

Well, I provided one. Just not one relating to myself. I'm sure you'll understand that to relate a story about a servitor of my own would necessarily involve something private, and I am not willing to expose myself to that degree. I am not interested in providing proof here; rather Iwould like to explain ideas involved in magic with a view to demonstrating that they are not inherently unreasonable. A theoretical discussion, if you will.

mossieh wrote:

Apparently. Scientists and sceptics however are very much concerned with 'how'.

Scientists certainly, but sceptics? I'm not so sure. You are conflating the two to some extent, or rather, subsuming scepticism within science. Science is about making observations and proposing explanations. Scepticism is about judging the reliability or meaningfulness of the observations, and by inference, the validity of the explanation. Science says A results in B because of C. Magic ignore, for the most part, C.

Lunch. To be continued.

mossieh

Sapien wrote:

Scientists certainly, but sceptics? I'm not so sure. You are conflating the two to some extent, or rather, subsuming scepticism within science. Science is about making observations and proposing explanations. Scepticism is about judging the reliability or meaningfulness of the observations, and by inference, the validity of the explanation. Science says A results in B because of C. Magic ignore, for the most part, C.

Lunch. To be continued.

Your statement about having 'met' demons was not a theoretical one, I presume. To resort to 'this is a theoretical discussion' when asked for proof or even anecdotes is frankly, lame.

Science is founded on sceptical enquiry. The 'reliability or meaningfulness of the observations' are what give them value. To validate a theory, you must attempt to disprove it. Only when you cannot disprove it do you accept it and move on.

A synopsis of this exchange to date...

You say: I perform magic.
I say: Why do you think it is magic?
You say: Because I am a magician.
I say: Is there no other explanation?
You say: It works so I don't really care. I am a sceptic though.
I say: You don't sound sceptical, can you give me a specific example of your magical experiences?
You say: I can but I won't, this is a theoretical discussion.
I say: ...

We've been down this road before. (it's a rather circular road) I'm going to bow out.

later

Talliesin

stevenmu wrote:

But is there really anything inherently "dark-ages" about magic ?

Quite the opposite. The dark-ages where a low point in magical practice in many ways. Like science, magic had a tentative revival in the Renaissance and a growth-spurt during the Enlightenment.

This is not to draw a connection between science and magic, for while the historical reasons that gave people greater scope in both were much the same, and while some people were involved in both (e.g. Isaac Newton) that does not make them particularly alike.

Still, the same social and political changes that affected science during that period affected magic also.

stevenmu wrote:

Wouldn't a sceptic carrying out works of magic really be someone performing an experiment to test a hypothesis that certain defined actions will result in a predefined outcome ?

Only if their purpose is the study of that hypothesis.

As a rule when a sceptic puts a mixture of dead animals and plants in a microwave the intended result is a hot meal - not the testing of any hypothesis concerning microwave radiation.

Any sufficiently successful practical magical is indistinguishable from advanced technology.

mossieh wrote:

Yes, if you can define for me precisely what the word magic means.

Causing change in accordance to will has been a classic definition for some decades now. How about that one.

mossieh wrote:

To analyse anything scientifically you have to first discard the term 'magic' because there is an implication in using it that it exists or works.

Nonsense. We may as well argue that to analyse Newtonian mechanics we must first discard "force" and "mass".

ladybirdirl

OK,

So I'm wondering if this discussion has gone away form my original intention.

It's clear to me that there's a lot of opinions re magic and it's validity - and thank you all for your posts.

From my point of view though, I think my question of does anyone have anything they would be comfortable sharing and what any consequences are has been answered( and correct me if I'm wrong) by people saying yes they practise but their practise is a private matter( I completely accept that) and there are differing views on what is 'dark' or not.

In summation then, I accept my niavety that was displayed in my question but if I'm correct the conclusion we've come to is that there's lots of magic practised but it's kept by the practitioners as something between them and their art.

Ladybird

mossieh

Talliesin wrote:

Causing change in accordance to will has been a classic definition for some decades now. How about that one.

OK, one last time, then I'm out.
'Causing change in accordance to will' is a worthless definition, anything that you do because you decided to do it is 'Causing change in accordance to will'

Talliesin wrote:

Nonsense. We may as well argue that to analyse Newtonian mechanics we must first discard "force" and "mass".

Force and mass are well defined and understood terms. They have a specific meaning. The word magic does not, it means something different to everyone who uses it. To analyse something seriously, the terms of reference must be well defined and understood, not nebulous and subjective. Your analogy is, frankly, nonsense.

Sapien

mossieh wrote:

Your statement about having 'met' demons was not a theoretical one, I presume. To resort to 'this is a theoretical discussion' when asked for proof or even anecdotes is frankly, lame.

I have had experiences that I describe, using the terminology appropriate to the context and my approach to it, as encounters with demons. Whether these demons are aspects of my own subconscious, products of hypnotic suggestion, manifestations of the collective unconscious, or alien intelligences, incarnate or discarnate, I have not deigned to opine, and, generally, do not. I cannot offer proof of these encounters, and do not intend to try. I cannot explain them, but am happy to throw around ideas. I can describe them to some extent, but with the caution that they are, by their nature, hugely subjective experiences. What is "lame" about that, I ask you?

My statement that I have met demons is theoretical insofar as I am open to any theory as to what (or whether) a demon might be, or what might be occuring when I encounter one. I apologise if that was unclear, but I assure you I meant nothing else.

mossieh wrote:

Science is founded on sceptical enquiry. The 'reliability or meaningfulness of the observations' are what give them value. To validate a theory, you must attempt to disprove it. Only when you cannot disprove it do you accept it and move on.

Er, what? A theory is valid if it explains what is observed, and strong if it does so more simply than any other theory. It is accepted until it is falsified. Your last sentence above does not make sense or reflect how science does or should work.

mossieh wrote:

A synopsis of this exchange to date...

You say: I perform magic.
I say: Why do you think it is magic?
You say: Because I am a magician.
I say: Is there no other explanation?

Break! Is there no other explanation to what? What have I tried to explain? I am a magician, I study magic, I do magic. Calling it magic does not entail any judgement or contention as to how it works. I do not attempt to explain it, or comment on whether it can be explained. It may very well be explainable. But I am not interested in explaining it. I am interested in doing it. For the time being, at least.

mossieh wrote:

You say: It works so I don't really care. I am a sceptic though.

Precisely. You contend that, as a sceptic, I must be interested in how it works. Well, I'm interested, I suppose. I'd love to know. It would make me quite famous. But, in doing magic, it is not my aim to know how it works. I hope you took on board my analogies about working out or learning a new language. Magic affords practical benefits - it is generally not undertaken for investigative purposes.

mossieh wrote:

I say: You don't sound sceptical, can you give me a specific example of your magical experiences?
You say: I can but I won't, this is a theoretical discussion.
I say: ...

We've been down this road before. (it's a rather circular road) I'm going to bow out.

Quite, because you only seem willing to listen to what I have to say up to a point, whereafter you seem to conclude that in order to be a sceptic I must abandon the pursuit of magic once clear explanations are not forthcoming. I then say that I do not do magic for the same reason I do science - to learn about the nature of the universe. This does not mean that I cannot approach it sceptically. Once again, scepticism can be applied in evaluating whether or not an effect exists, not merely in whether the theory proposed to explain the effect is valid. Magic is about results, and I am sceptical of results.

What I am interested in here is to discuss certain ideas, like the existence of spirits, or what spirits might be, or the effects of ritual on the practitioner, or other practices that comprise modern magic, with a view to clarifying exactly what magicians do or believe, and more importantly what they do not. Clearly this is important because, a dozen posts in, you still bear misconceptions about what I mean by summoning demons, and you still seem to assume that I believe magic to be inherently and necessarily supernatural and unexplainable by science. With such misconceptions you cannot seriously engage with the ideas involved in magic, and cannot hope to understand what motivates so many rational, educated people to practice it.

Please take on board the following points.

- Magic is a set (or set of sets) of practices and techniques. It is not a belief system or a theory. Calling something magical is not a way of describing how it works.

- Magic is not undertaken to investigate the nature of the universe. It is undertaken to impart skills and abilities, to improve character and develop personally.

Sapien

To add, scepticism and scientific training commonly impact on my understanding of, and approach to magic by leading me to reject many quasi-scientific explanations for magical phenomena. Needless to say, the temptation to theorise mechanisms by which magic might work is too much for many practitioners, generally with a dangerous little science in their backgrounds. Mainstream science is frequently abused to fit the fancies of enthusiastic but misguided magical theoreticians, and fringe or cutting edge science even more frequently embellished and inflated out of all proportion to explain things that scientists will have to humility to admit are (or would be) presently beyond our understanding. This is a phenomenon all too easily forgotten. Scepticism is most useful when rejecting theories, which I do all the time. A sceptical magician is one who will most readily admit that he has no idea how magic works.

Talliesin

ladybirdirl wrote:

and there are differing views on what is 'dark' or not.

And we never even got so far as looking at "dabbling"

ladybirdirl wrote:

if I'm correct the conclusion we've come to is that there's lots of magic practised but it's kept by the practitioners as something between them and their art.

Well there's a lot that is talked about. There are a handful of people on this thread alone that have said something about how they practice. There is also a lot that is kept quiet for a variety of reasons.

mossieh wrote:

Force and mass are well defined and understood terms. They have a specific meaning.

Give magic a specific meaning and you can start studying it scientifically if you wish.

Talliesin

Sapien wrote:

Needless to say, the temptation to theorise mechanisms by which magic might work is too much for many practitioners, generally with a dangerous little science in their backgrounds.

I have to agree strongly with this.

There is a similar practice of applying scientific understanding badly back onto magic and hence confusing ones understanding of magic. I could describe a party as having had "a great energy" and would convey a rather nebulous concept quite well. Nobody would expect me to be able to give a measurement of said "energy" in kilojoules.

Unfortunately when we use the same word in terms of magic (and it serves, well enough) there is often a temptation to take the word in the sense it has there and it's sense in physics and apply knowledge from physics to magic.

Hence we get people applying the first law of thermodynamics to this "energy" without first demonstrating that term means the same in both cases.

Now, that is bad science. It's also likely to lead to bad magic.

This doesn't mean that raising energy and directing it is bad science - it's not science of any sort and that's fine as long as it doesn't claim to be.

However the source of this is not, I think, a tendency on the part of magicians in particular but rather a side-effect of how since the Enlightenment scientific concepts have entered into the vernacular is such a way that scientific terms are inevitably adopted by lay-people or indeed by scientists who are not currently engaged in science.

Still. It's then that we move from non-science into bad science.

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

Now, that is bad science. It's also likely to lead to bad magic.

Exactly, well put (:mad:). In this way science and scepticism allows one to be a better magician, if only by rendering one less susceptible to what might be called "interference". We all adopt the language and crude concepts of everyday life to enrich our analogous understandings of other things - something which is of inestimable importance in magic, which depends so utterly on symbols. As a vague knowledge of science creeps into the vernacular, it becomes inevitable that scientific theories, often so rich and illustrative, are harnessed to magical thinking - often to the exclusion of traditional sources like nature, narrative and myth.

Then two problems arise - first the science is often poorly or mistakenly understood, and is warped by the analogy; and secondly the analogy is often pursued along the lines of the science, which is established, to the detriment of its meningfulness to the magic, which is not. And so, as you say, wider theories, like thermodynamics, are supposed to be in effect in magic, when there is no reason to believe they are. An illusorily complete synthesis of how magic works is arrived at, which fails under observation.

Red Hand

I guess feelings and emotions of a practitioner of magic just aren't enough for me to understand. It's like asking a Christian how they know God exists, and they say, "I just know/can feel him".

Sapien

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I guess feelings and emotions of a practitioner of magic just aren't enough for me to understand. It's like asking a Christian how they know God exists, and they say, "I just know/can feel him".

Precisely not. If you ask me why I devote time to magic I will answer, "because it makes sense" and "because it works". There are problems explaining the logic, because there are so many misconceptions around the topic, and a mire of quasi-sceptical superstitions to penetrate, but I believe it can be done.

Red Hand

Sapien wrote:

Precisely not. If you ask me why I devote time to magic I will answer, "because it makes sense" and "because it works". There are problems explaining the logic, because there are so many misconceptions around the topic, and a mire of quasi-sceptical superstitions to penetrate, but I believe it can be done.

Many Christians adhere to the logic-"God makes sense because there has to be something that created it all". Likewise, prayer works, because the prayer was "answered". Neither of these I can relate to.

I'm probably being very prejudiced here, sorry.

Sapien

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Many Christians adhere to the logic-"God makes sense because there has to be something that created it all". Likewise, prayer works, because the prayer was "answered". Neither of these I can relate to.

I'm probably being very prejudiced here, sorry.

The Creator Fallacy is easily dealt with (elsewhere, please!!), and, as a magician, I have to be somewhat willing to concede that prayer can work, being as it is a rather crude form of magic. The point is that a magician doesn't necessarily believe anything except that magic does (or can) work. The religious person believes a great deal more, with a lot less reason.

To illustrate - a person begins some basic magical practices, and after a year finds her mental discipline and physical fitness have improved. She believes, therefore, that magic works. A person accepts Jesus as his saviour, and a year later finds himself happier than he had been before. He believes, therefore, that the Creator of the Universe sent his only Son to take the form of a Palestinian jew, to perform miracles, die and return from the dead. Not quite the same.

ladybirdirl

Talliesin wrote:

And we never even got so far as looking at "dabbling"


Well there's a lot that is talked about. There are a handful of people on this thread alone that have said something about how they practice. There is also a lot that is kept quiet for a variety of reasons.

Yes - you're right - thanks for that clarification. I suppose in one way I sort of expected to hear stories of having to invoke a goddess at a solstice or something & it being too big to control or something like that (very hollywood I know:o )


I'm still wondering though - take all the science or bad science or quasi science out of it. Just take the experience and the result of the ritual/spell/ceremony that anyone goes through. Is it true to say that sometimes this can create/make live something that was completely unexpected and perhaps difficult to handle/get rid of? I'm just talking subjective experience here. This might be a very basic question but as I've said many times, I'm the original noive here with an interest in how people cope with these things.



Ladybird

Sapien

ladybirdirl wrote:

Yes - you're right - thanks for that clarification. I suppose in one way I sort of expected to hear stories of having to invoke a goddess at a solstice or something & it being too big to control or osmething liek that (very hollywood I know:o )

Ladybird

Well.

When I was fifteen I invoked the god Fenris and, well, it was too big to control. Is that the kind of thing you're looking for? I wouldn't have called it "dark", so much as stupid.

ladybirdirl

Sapien,

thanks for sharing that - spot on what I'm looking for. Ok so you felt stupid/foolish (kudos to you for trying it at 15, )

what would you feel you learned from that experience - patience, humility, courage ?

Ladybird

Sapien

ladybirdirl wrote:

Sapien,

thanks for sharing that - spot on what I'm looking for. Ok so you felt stupid/foolish (kudos to you for trying it at 15, )

what would you feel you learned from that experience - patience, humility, courage ?

The importance of banishing and grounding techniques, and exhaustive preparation for ritual. It has left me with the ceremonial equivalent of OCD (and a sensitivity to the Lunar Cycle ).

Nevyn

ladybirdirl wrote:

Yes - you're right - thanks for that clarification. I suppose in one way I sort of expected to hear stories of having to invoke a goddess at a solstice or something & it being too big to control or something like that (very hollywood I know:o )

That question would be more suited to the pagansim forum and I will not answer it here in this forum given the context of this forum.

ladybirdirl wrote:

I'm still wondering though - take all the science or bad science or quasi science out of it. Just take the experience and the result of the ritual/spell/ceremony that anyone goes through. Is it true to say that sometimes this can create/make live something that was completely unexpected and perhaps difficult to handle/get rid of? I'm just talking subjective experience here. This might be a very basic question but as I've said many times, I'm the original noive here with an interest in how people cope with these things.

Again a good question but again one I do not feel I can answer in the context of this forum.

ladybirdirl

Thaed,

Why do you think it's more suited to the paganism forum - you could be very correct, I'm just wondering why.

Would it not be insulting to member of the paganism forum to ask those sorts of questions on their forum. I'm just thinking that obviously members of that forum would know the naswers to those questions already?

Ladybird

Red Hand

Sapien wrote:

To illustrate - a person begins some basic magical practices, and after a year finds her mental discipline and physical fitness have improved. She believes, therefore, that magic works. A person accepts Jesus as his saviour, and a year later finds himself happier than he had been before. He believes, therefore, that the Creator of the Universe sent his only Son to take the form of a Palestinian jew, to perform miracles, die and return from the dead. Not quite the same.

Hmmmm, I don't see the difference between happiness and physical fitness/mental well-being in this example. Both people are attributing their improved state to something that they believe in, when the reason in both case could be due to a whole myriad of things-diet, relationship(s), how much sunlight they got that year-things which they may not have being paying that much attention to during that year. In that particular year, both engage in practices tthat they haven't participated in before, and so, put their improved state down to those practices.

Nevyn

No it would not be insulting at all.

Infact I find asking such questions here insulting tbh.

Discussion and questions have always been welcomed in the pagansim forum and
there are many people with different spiritual paths and practices as well as
those who are just starting out and are curious about different things.

Many people pop by ask their question get answers and wander off again
unless they are trolls then they get teased and usually eventually banned.

Let me see why would I think that a pagan religious practices such as

having to invoke a goddess at a solstice

be more suited with in the paganism forum ?

Do I really have to answer this ?

Sapien

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Hmmmm, I don't see the difference between happiness and physical fitness/mental well-being in this example. Both people are attributing their improved state to something that they believe in, when the reason in both case could be due to a whole myriad of things-diet, relationship(s), how much sunlight they got that year-things which they may not have being paying that much attention to during that year. In that particular year, both engage in practices tthat they haven't participated in before, and so, put their improved state down to those practices.

Yes, but you miss my point. The burdens of evidence for the conclusions they come to are very different, while their evidence (happiness, heightened capacities) is of a similar order. The magician believes that magic works, which is manifest, but the religious person believes in a supernatural god, which in no way follows from religious adherence making one happy.

ladybirdirl

Thaedydal wrote:

Let me see why would I think that a pagan religious practices such as

be more suited with in the paganism forum ?

Do I really have to answer this ?

Oh I get you - apologies, I used the terminology I've heard most about, didn't realise it was exclusively pagan.

If I changed it to 'invoke/call on a spirit', not in a strictly pagan sense but in a magical sense.

And again apologies if I'm being thick but why would you think it's insulting to have to answer the same question here?

Ladybird

Nevyn

For the most part those who are practitioners of the Art are witches and magicains and most ( not all ) are pagan.

I would ask why you did not post in paganism or spiritually, what stopped you ?

As far as I am concerned this whole thread is misplaced as none of the posts ( other then maybe mine about taking certain measurements ) fall under the heading of paranormal and more of the occult and spiritual.

ladybirdirl

Thaedydal wrote:

For the most part those who are practitioners of the Art are witches and magicains and most ( not all ) are pagan.

I would ask why you did not post in paganism or spiritually, what stopped you ?

.

Nothing stopped me. Paranormal is the forum I'm most 'active' in or familiar with and tbh I didn't even think of the direction the thread would take until I put the question up.

I do think there is still a paranormal element - if I invoke a spirit, I'm interested to see if the effect on me is similiar to the effect I would feel on a investigation where I have a 'random' encounter with what I think may be a spirit. I'm interested in the comparison of the depth/strength/expression of 'feelings' between the 'random' and 'planned' encounter.

Hence my post in paranormal

Ladybird

stevenmu

The topic as I understand it belongs in here. While there has been a lot of talk about magic in particular, the topic itself is about the possible consequences of "dabbling", be it with magic, ouija boards, ghosts in a castle, or anything else which could be considered paranormal.

I can understand why people wouldn't want to discuss detailed magical working on this forum, but the questions being asked aren't about that (and maybe I should have stopped the thread going in that direction earlier, but I was enjoying reading it), they are more about simply the consequences of dabbling with the unknown. Considering we regularly have people posting threads here saying they want to try x, y or z, and being told that it's not a good idea, I think this is a great thread to have here.

That said, I think the more magic specific aspects of the the thread could spawn another good discussion, and if people would like I could copy them out to a new thread, presumably in paganism ?

Nevyn

Thank you for your reply Ladybird.

ladybirdirl wrote:

I do think there is still a paranormal element - if I invoke a spirit, I'm interested to see if the effect on me is similiar to the effect I would feel on a investigation where I have a 'random' encounter with what I think may be a spirit. I'm interested in the comparison of the depth/strength/expression of 'feelings' between the 'random' and 'planned' encounter.

Still I wonder why you did not make this statement at the start as it would have put a very different slant on the thread.

Would you consider deliberately setting out to contact, evoke or stir up a spirit at an non active site or provoking those at an active site to be practising 'Dark arts' ?

Nevyn

Thank you for your reply Ladybird.

ladybirdirl wrote:

I do think there is still a paranormal element - if I invoke a spirit, I'm interested to see if the effect on me is similiar to the effect I would feel on a investigation where I have a 'random' encounter with what I think may be a spirit. I'm interested in the comparison of the depth/strength/expression of 'feelings' between the 'random' and 'planned' encounter.

Still I wonder why you did not make this statement at the start as it would have put a very different slant on the thread.

Would you consider deliberately setting out to contact, evoke or stir up a spirit at an non active site or provoking those at an active site to be practising 'Dark arts' ?

Would you consider attending an organised mediumship session or classes there are place in Dublin that do such things ?

ladybirdirl

Thaed,

you're right - perhaps it would have put a different slant on things had I said that up front but as I said - I was evolving my own thoughts as the discusssion moved along.

Would I consider deliberately setting out to contact at a non active site practising something ' dark' - no.

Would I attend a mediumship course/classes - absolutely. It's even more clear to me now how little I know and tbh my interest is really piqued - thanks to all posters for that:)

Ladybird