Magick for materialists

[ciphergoth]

(This is something purplerabbits and myself have thought for a long time, and I just got to writing up in an LJ comment. Copying it here with minor edits 'cos I'm interested to know what people think.)

I think I'm generally acknowledged to be a total screaming materialist and skeptic about magick, superstition, gods and so forth, and as such I'm not sure I see a reason why you shouldn't do a ritual to change the way you feel about something, if you think it might work.

It's not necessarily a step in the question of believing in all that - it's a willing suspension of disbelief, in order to do things to your head from a sideways angle that aren't always easy to do head-on. Our heads are full of irrational things, some of them undesirable, and you can't always make them stop doing their nasty work by saying "stop that, it's irrational!". You can use ritual and suspension of disbelief to turn them into something you can visualise, something tangible, and you can address them on their own territory.

The liberating thing about this, of course, is that you needn't invoke Innana, or Ganesh, if you don't want to - if it will work better, you can invoke John Lennon or Santa Claus.

When Alison and I decided to stop dithering and commit to running BiCon 2002, we did a ritual to mark the occasion - she found two blue smarties and two red ones, and we solemnly ate the red pills together...

Comments

[louis_mallow]

As a confirmed ritual magician I can doi no better than point
you at Dion FOrtune's studer Butler who altered her definition decisively.

She (and the whole order of the Golden Dawn) said that magic is:
"The art of causing changes in reality at will."

He calls it in Magic and the magician:
"The act of causing changes in conciousness at will."

Seems to line up with what you're saying. Welcome to the system, Frater P; we need a good Cryptographer... :0)

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Yes, I found this of interest. In many "magical" systems one finds the concept of acting "as if" ie as if you believe, to play tricks on your mind rather than vice versa. A lot of what you say is applicable to certain sexual practises as well, IMHO.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[giolla.livejournal.com]

You sound more like a satanist every day.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Two people have already said that my position is that of existing magickal practitioners, but I think this is wide of the mark in at least one way which is very important to me: I despise obfuscation on such matters. If you want to point me at someone who's taken the same position, you'll need to point me at where they clearly and straightforwardly state that their philosophy is simply and wholly materialist, in the way that the likes of Daniel Dennet, CSICOP etc would understand, as mine is.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Oh, double points if they do it without writing in that irritating, excessively flowery "poetic" language full of archaisms that often gets used.

[ruis.livejournal.com]

Two people have already said that my position is that of existing magickal practitioners

Which 'magickal' practitioners were they likening you to? Most forms of magic that I am aware of believe in karma which doesn't seem to fit with how you preceive yourself to act.

Thinking about it - Giolla you're right after all.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Please explain; as I understand it my position is very different from that of anyone who'd call themselves a "satanist". For one thing, I think to give yourself such a tag would be the mark of a blitering idiot in the first place.

*what*-ever

[kitty-goth.livejournal.com]

>Thinking about it - Giolla you're right after all.

Somehow, I doubt that.

K

[gnomatron.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'd give them triple points if they spelt magic without a "k" (or a y, or an e, or a j: to the logical extreme of being spelt "Majycke"). If anyone can enlighten me on why people feel the need to spell the word this way, please do, but I for one can't see any reason for it.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not terribly dissimilar to some of the things said/written by Alan Moore and Grant Morrison (unsurprising, as I assume Morrison's Invisibles was the inspiration for your Lennon reference?) - although Morrison seems to have more recently changed his position on such things.

Alan Moore's said at least once that he views his deity, Glycon, as a peg to pin assorted mental tools/exercises on, rather than a 'real' entity. I can't remember if that was in writing or on a CD, but I'll see if I can find specifics. I don't believe he's contradicted that statement since then.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I assume Morrison's Invisibles was the inspiration for your Lennon reference? - yes indeed.

And the Santa Claus reference comes from a ritual actually performed by people from the IOT (ie the Chaos magick folk). That side of what I'm saying is by no means new - you can also find it in stuff that Phil Hine has written. But I also know that many people who do magick that way are not materialists. What I haven't seen before, and I'd be interested to see, is someone coupling that with an explicit, straightforward, unambiguous statement of belief in orthodox philosophical materialism.

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

If I ever pick a deity, I think I'll make it one that doesn't sound like a brand of windscreen washer fluid...

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Yes, what you say is valid and I dont know if I could find anything in the writings of , say, Aleister Crowley, which would meet your test. Conversely, I cant recall anything in his writings which I interpreted as meaning one could not work his system and define as atheist/materialist, but I realise that certainly seems like obfuscation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Honest question

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

I despise obfuscation on such matters I quite agree.

But if one removes the obfuscation completely, one is left with a ritual that can often be simplified and pared down to, finally, muttering "Tsch, I'd better just get on with it then."

At some point in tha decline the event becomes non-magickal, but where..?

Re: Honest question

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any contradiction.

While doing the ritual, you can be as obscure as you like - willing suspension of disbelief and all that.

While talking about your beliefs down the pub, you'd better speak clearly and straightforwardly if you want me to take you at all seriously...

Re: Honest question

[ruis.livejournal.com]

This is a discussion that should be held over a pint.

Firstly it depends which ritulistic or magical belief system you chose to adhere to and how you define magic and ritual in accordance with that system.

Some groups see a difference between 'high' and low magic. If you define magic as an act of will then any act of will that produces a result can be viewed as magic. Low magic is where you act physically, eg. you want light so you turn on the light switch. High magic would be causing it to be light through will alone without doing something as mundane as using a switch. So in this system any act of will is performing magic.

Ritual can be thought of being a way of harnessing your will to achieve the desired effect. In some cases it can be a practical act, I have a 'ritual' of giving the cats nice food when I am stressed and need things to go right; which has worked every time. Ok so I get happy purring cats to stroke which calms me and lets me deal with whatever is stressing me but they tell me its to do with mystical kitten energy and I need to feed them more often for the best effect.

In my view people who use meditation and affirmations are performing rituals to affect themselves.

I don't feel that it matters whether a ritual works because of magic or not. The fact that something works is all that really matters on a personal level.

Allow me to nail my colours to my burning mast here...

[kitty-goth.livejournal.com]

As you know, I was originally a materialist who was dragged kicking and screaming into this.

I know that *you* perceive my beliefs in this direction to be the result of (fairly obvious) flaws in my mind.

Frankly, I wish I did too.

One slight snag - I don't have that option - and I don't expect to, all the time I'm repeatedly smacked upside the head with The Stark Pigs Bladder of a Force Majeure.

What I'm mostly interested in is What Works.

In that context, I'd recommend looking at some of the stuff on Temporary Belief Systems in Chaos Magic.

As long as you remember - It's all a put-up job. At least for the next 24 hours. After that, it's serious again and you're gambling your immortal soul.

K x

Re: Allow me to nail my colours to my burning mast here...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I know that *you* perceive my beliefs in this direction to be the result of (fairly obvious) flaws in my mind.

This is sometimes true, but actually I don't think it is in your case. I think you're mistaken, but I'm surprised that we disagree on this issue and I don't have a pat theory over why your beliefs are what they are beyond "Kitty can really surprise you sometimes!"

And your point is...

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

The philosophy that you describe is so obviously rational and sensible that I hardly see the point of you bringing it up for debate. I take the same approach to spirituality, although I prefer mountains and concerts to rituals.

I would like to point out that the difference between the rational and faith-based approaches to spirituality are:

• The rational spiritualists acknowledge a suspension of disbelief. The faith-based ones refuse to acknowledge it and hate you if you point it out, even if its's blindingly obvious.
• Only the faith-based spiritualists seem to come together in large groups that maintain the pretense 24/7, even by force, and only they describe the world in terms of it as if it were fact.

I wish that the believers and the rationalists would come to a compromise, where the rationalists say: OK, you acknowledge that what you are doing is suspension of disbelief and stop trying to impose it as fact in public discourse. We quit ridiculing and demolishing your myths (except in technical fields) and generally let the illusion work for you. Everybody agrees to teach young people that the world basically works rationally, but suspension of disbelief is valuable to many people and should be respected as a private activity. Like other private activities, everyone lets the children find their own preferences.

Pavlos

Re: And your point is...

[ajva.livejournal.com]

OK, you acknowledge that what you are doing is suspension of disbelief and stop trying to impose it as fact in public discourse.

I think that would be the sticking point. Some people genuinely believe.

It sould be a bit like saying to a religious (monotheistic) person: "OK, you admit God doesn't exist, and we'll stop ridiculing and demolishing your myths". It's not really going to work because you're still insisting that they admit you're right and they're just being silly.

:o)

Re: And your point is...

[djm4]

Yes, the compromise I prefer is more along the lines of:

"OK, we accept that you and I believe different things. I accept that you believe in $spiritual_entity and you accept that I don't. Neither of us has any likelihood of convincing the other that the other is wrong, since we're both intelligent and well-read enough to be familiar with the relevant arguments. So long as it doesn't hurt or threaten me that you believe different things from me, that's not a problem. Just don't try to get me to run my life according to yuor beliefs, and I won't try to get you to run your life according to mine."

This won't solve all problems. Some people's beliefs (rational and spiritual) cause them to believe that they need to convert others to their belief, and do Bad Things to people who don't convert. And there is certainly the problem of what to tell the kids - in an ideal world you let them decide what's right for them, but they're inevitably goign to be more strongly influenced by the beliefs of those people closest to them.

I doubt it

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I think that would be the sticking point.

I agree that this is the sticking point, and this is why I'm sticking to it. I think getting over it would represent some progress.

Some people genuinely believe.

I'm not convinced. Or, at least, I would be prepared to believe that a tiny minority of those who are religious are so deluded that they genuinely believe. I think the majority just want the illusion to work. Therefore, they don't like admitting that it's a spiritual illusion, and they don't like us pointing it out. If they have their way, as they had for centuries, they would insist that everyone subscribes to the illusion and describes the world in terms of it, as if it were fact.

The message that I wish to get through to religious people is this: Look, it's an illusion. Both you and I know this. We understand the value of the illusion and respect it. In the past, you (believers) have been forcing the illusion upon us but now we (rationalists) have the upper hand. Why don't you give up the untenable position of trying to confront fact with the illusion, and we'll go some way to maintain pretenses in order not to spoil the illusion for you. But we'll only do that on the basis of a clear understanding that it's an illusion.

Now, if the religious people really had a strong ability to use faith, they would be quite comfortable with this compromise, as are Alison and Paul. But because of their feeble powers of maintaining belief, they feel that the illusion will shatter if they admit it or if anyone challenges it, and so they have been censoring the rest of us for centuries into some grotesque theater where we were not allowed to question their beliefs. All so that they could more easly indulge in their escapism.

Pavlos

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

...and Latimer is a totem?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

The most important thing about Latimer is that we no longer have him :-)

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

rothko managed to get me a big box of M&Ms in bi pride colors...

I have a somewhat similar problem. The I Ching seems to work for me in a way that goes way beyond anything I can accept on the basis of probability. But I can't explain how it works, and it bothers me that I can't explain it. Sure, I can come up with rationales and hypotheses, but I'd be a lot happier if I had a theory.

Similarly, my intuitive "detect evil" has fired several times, and every time the person has turned out much later on to be well worth avoiding. I can't explain how I knew, but somehow I did, almost immediately.

In the end, though, I'm pragmatic. If it works, it works, so why not use it? I mean, most people who aren't engineers use stuff they don't understand every day. Computers, cars, telephones, TVs... So really, the problem is that I've grown up with the expectation that I can understand how anything works, at least in outline.