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

[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.

[ruis.livejournal.com]

Um, I know lots of very nice very rational people who could explain to us at length how calling yourself a pervert was the mark of a blitering idiot because everyone knows that perverts are nasty, evil, unethical and probably far too interested in childern and should be locked up. The problem is they know what a pervert is and are so fanatical about this belief that when you explain SM to them they normally smile, nod graciously and say - but that isn't being a pervert.

I'm sorry that I used a term that has the same triggering affect on yourself.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Would you turn around to someone who doesn't identify as "pervert" and say "I think you're a pervert" without further explanation?

Could you imagine a way of reading such a thing as a good or helpful thing to say?

*sigh*

[ruis.livejournal.com]

LJ has eaten my wonderfully crafted response to you and mozilla hates me so here's a far shorter version. (I would be grateful if you'd humour me and accept the longer version was an insightful work of literary genius.)

Firstly neither Giolla or I have said that you are a satanist. I do not think it helpful to apply a label to someone who I know doesn't identify with that label. To use your example, I will say to people that they act like a pervert or sound like a pervert. It then becomes a topic that they can chose to discuss or ignore. Sometimes the person has a strong reaction against the phrase, in which case I aplogise and if they seem interested try to explain what I mean.

In this case my knowing that you do not currently identify as a satanist does not equate to my knowing that you have a negative view of the term.

If I consider that someone sounds like they could be a pervert from the things that they say then I do consider this a helpful thing to point out to them. (I sort of assume that most people who know me would be able to tell if I were likening their actions or views to something that I consider to be bad. This appears to be a flawed assumption.) It gives them the chance to re-evaluate whether this kinky stuff is for them or not. It can supply them with a chance to learn about wiitwd or at least come to an understanding as to why I think what they are saying sounds like something a pervert would say. If nothing else it can clarify their understanding of how I view the world and what I mean when I say certain things.

So for what was actually said, I don't have a problem with it. I can see how you jumped to the conclusion that you did and why this caused offence. I do not see this being the same as Giolla intending to cause offence. (Do I really need to point out that I am only speaking for myself - I obviously feel that I do.) Going back to the point you originally made, the only existing 'magickal' practitioners that I could see your views being likened to are Levy or various memebers of the Golden Dawn / OTO. If they weren't the examples of materialistic magicians used I am still curious as to whom you have been likened to.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

*coughs* You know I used to identify as a Satanist for quite a while... Even now it's probably best fitting label for my beliefs.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

You know, while I think you're wonderful in many ways, you do believe and identify with some very strange things...

*what*-ever

[kitty-goth.livejournal.com]

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

Somehow, I doubt that.

K

Re: *what*-ever

[ruis.livejournal.com]

Out of interest - why?

Re: *what*-ever

[giolla.livejournal.com]

Ludicrous idea I know,
and yet I have documents that prove I've been right in the past.
(and a sworn statement that I once told a funny joke)

[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.

[ruis.livejournal.com]

The reason I've heard the most often is to differentiate "High Magick" from mere conjuring tricks.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I actually corrected this entry to use that spelling; it simply underlines the difference between that sort of thing and conjuring. No disrespect to the skill and artistry of conjurers is intended of course.

[gnomatron.livejournal.com]

hmm. The word, for me, has unpleasant associations with people who take this sort of thing far too seriously. I'm very much in favour of the view you've been advocating here. I'm quite happy to tolerate people holding views that I believe to be utterly false, as long as they don't try to make claims they can't back up with evidence. Sadly, a lot of people do just that in a very public manner, and give the vast majority of sensible practitioners a bad name.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.

I object to all of those on aesthetic grounds; also because I had teachers giving me a bloody hard time to get my grammar and spelling right, and I don't see why anyone else should get out of it.


J

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

There are many occasions where a different meaning is marked with a variant spelling: skeptic and program spring to mind...

[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.