ciphergoth | Magick for materialists

(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...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ajva.livejournal.com

Well, firstly, it wasn't me who introduced the word "illusion". All I am saying is that if people believe something to be true, then admitting it is an illusion is the same as admitting it is not true. Many religious people do not intellectualise their beliefs to the extent that many of your acquaintences do, after all. And indeed, the ones that do are probably not the ones who annoy Pavlos (and me, incidentally).

Secondly, it seems as if Pavlos requires that most people who claim to believe know deep down that they're wrong. His whole argument appears to turn on the idea that all but a tiny number of people (so small they're not worth bothering about, he seems to say), are aware that they're wrong, and what he would like to see is them coming out and admitting it. But what if *he's* wrong? Where's his proof? He seems to be going on gut instinct.

The message that I wish to get through to religious people is this: Look, it's an illusion. Both you and I know this.

I might as well say: "Look, God exists and you're just denying what you know in your own heart to be true. Give yourself a break and let Jesus into your life. You know it makes sense. You know it's true deep down, so why are you being so stubborn? I wish everyone in the world knew the Lord personally. You'd all be so happy and it would be a much nicer place."

Let me state for the record, incidentally, that I am a confirmed atheist. But I accept that this also is a faith position. When I say that I might as well say... "XYZ" above, my point is not that what is said in that paragraph is justified, or indeed that I don't agree that religious people are deluded (I do), but rather that Pavlos is using opinion rather than fact in what he appears to posit as a debating position, and so I don't believe it will be a very effective debating approach. That's all. I suspect that Pavlos and I agree on far more than not.

From:

ex-meta.livejournal.com

All I am saying is that if people believe something to be true, then admitting it is an illusion is the same as admitting it is not true.

I'm not sure I'd go along with that. There's too much hyperreal stuff around these days. Consider a magical sword in EverQuest--is it an electronic illusion, or is it real? If I believe in its existence and magical power, is that belief true or not?

It's not true, because the sword doesn't really exist in the physical universe, and even if it did it wouldn't be magical. Yet on the other hand, it's not an illusion, because it has a consistent existence in the EverQuest realm. Furthermore, you might have purchased it with real money on eBay, which breaks down the boundary even further.

One of the things I learnt from Philip K Dick, not to mention Baudrillard, is that the boundary between real and illusion, and between true and false, is a lot less clear and consistent than many people believe it to be.

Of course, a lot of people who believe in gods would probably reject postmodernism. They want to believe in an absolute objective reality and concrete binary notions of truth and falsity as much as they want to believe in gods.

From:

ajva.livejournal.com

I think perhaps the use of the word "illusion" is clouding the issue. What I mean to say is that it appears to me that Pavlos was saying that he would want to get all people professing to believe in X to admit that they don't really believe it. I was suggesting that a large number of them probably do.

The EverQuest sword poser is, I think, no poser at all: quite simply, it is a matter of context. It is not real because it is part of a fictional world, but it is as real as anything alse in that world and it can be effective within it, and in whatever ways that fictional world interacts with this. So you pay real money to improve your chances in the game. That's a product.

There are plenty of people who believe in the existence of God as a fact, many of whom have never heard of "postmodernism". And frankly, I too would argue that when it comes down to whether God exists or not (in some form, for some definition), then to me this is a purely objective question. Either He/it does or He/it doesn't. Just because someone wants him/it to exist doesn't mean he/it does, and just because I don't doesn't mean he/it doesn't (arguments over exactly what form he/it might take if it existed are not enough to negate this stance, because any form which would be recognised is enough for the definition, and ifhe/it doesn't exist then it's irrelevant). You and I have nothing to do with it, because the universe is not centred around human beings - only our perception of it is. And our perception of it is what you are talking about. Because the word "illusion" refers to perception, here lies the confusion, I think. I may not have been clear enough, but I am attempting to talk about something from more of an objective approach.

One of the things I learnt from Philip K Dick, not to mention Baudrillard, is that the boundary between real and illusion, and between true and false, is a lot less clear and consistent than many people believe it to be.

This may be true, but my point is that it is not true to the "believers" I at least am talking about. My point in this debate has only ever been that Pavlos's approach could never possibly work, because it relies upon geting the "other side" to admit that "we" are right and they wrong, from the start. In fact, that is also their position! But Pavlos says he wants a compromise. This is contradictory. A true compromise means negotiation until both sides have part - but not all - of what they want. Pavlos's approach gives nothing but takes everything as right. All I mean to do is question this.

Although, as I say, I expect Pavlos and I are pretty much agreed about the larger issue...;o)

Phew. Too many long words; I'm off for the weekend.

From:

ex-meta.livejournal.com

The EverQuest sword poser is, I think, no poser at all: quite simply, it is a matter of context. It is not real because it is part of a fictional world, but it is as real as anything alse in that world and it can be effective within it, and in whatever ways that fictional world interacts with this. So you pay real money to improve your chances in the game. That's a product.

That doesn't seem to me to have answered the question of whether it's real or not. It seems more like you've just agreed with me.

And frankly, I too would argue that when it comes down to whether God exists or not (in some form, for some definition), then to me this is a purely objective question.

I don't see why the existence of god should be a priori objective. Plenty of things exist for me but not for you. A bunch of ideas, for example.

You and I have nothing to do with it, because the universe is not centred around human beings - only our perception of it is.

But our perception is all we know. It's convenient to assume that those perceptions correspond to an objective external reality, but there's no guarantee that any god you may experience will do so. We experience things that don't correspond to consensus reality all the time.

This may be true, but my point is that it is not true to the "believers" I at least am talking about.

Again, I think you're agreeing with me.

From:

feanelwa.livejournal.com

I don't think the sword is a blurry example of real/not real - it's a superposition of the two states.
In EverQuest, it's a real sword.
Not in EverQuest, it's not a real sword.
If someone turned round saying "I'm holding a magic EverQuest sword" and hit me with it, they would consider both to be true. To their EverQuest self, i'd be dead. To their real-world self, i'd still be alive. But i wouldn't be half-alive and half-dead. I'd be both distinct states at the same time.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

What are you going on about? In the EverQuest server there are some electrical charges and/or magnetic patterns that represent the polygons and stats of the EverQuest sword. Through a complicated arrangement of electronics, pictures appear on your screen that look similar to a metal sword. Many people have been exposed to those images and so their brains contain synaptic patterns that are related to the memory of the on-screen images of the sword, and to plans about the uses in which the sword could be put into in the game. Where's the blur between the real and "not real" in all this?

Honestly, if I were a contemporary of Plato I'd sneak up to him in a dark cave and kick him over the head!

Pavlos

From:

ajva.livejournal.com

I don't see why the existence of god should be a priori objective. Plenty of things exist for me but not for you. A bunch of ideas, for example.

Do you know what, this is fascinating.

I'll attempt to explain why I think as I do with this, although getting the words exact will be tricky, so bear with me.

I do not disagree that there are things which exist for one person and not another - that is certainly correct and these beliefs are a matter of perception. If a particular person did not exist then neither would their particular belief (although something very similar may exist in someone else).

One point about God as the word is usually understood in, for example, the Christian religion, is that He is supposed to be omnipotent. I argue that this definition of God implies that God is supposed to exist separately from the minds of those who believe in him. Indeed, Christians certainly act as if this is true. Integral to the idea of "bearing witness" is the concept that it is your duty to spread the Word, so that more people can be "saved". If you ask many Christians if they believe that God exists for everyone and not just for those who believe in Him, then I bet you'd first of all get a puzzled look, and then a definite "yes". It is part of this religion that God exists separate from human beings. I don't believe it, but I am certain that it is a fundamental part of that belief system. Otherwise what's the point? Who the hell would become a Christian just because they want a ritual system? Who would subscribe to such a prohibitive way of life just because they hope it will be comforting? And don't we have plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who are converted to Christianity tend to undergo some kind of Damascene experience which leaves them utterly certain that there "is" a God? I don't think any of them mean "there is a God for me, although admittedly, He may not exist for you..." Many of them want to convert everybody else, because they're sure God exists objectively. There are religious people who accept the "God exists for me, but maybe not for you" line, but they are the philosophical few.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

I agree. I think that the major religions with which we are vaguely familiar over here (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are unfortunately constructed along very absolute lines. God is supposed to exist for everyone, and is supposed to be interventionist. It would be difficult for someone to become a Christian just to get a spiritual framework for themselves. It might be possible to join some new religion with modern constraints or, like Alison, to eclectically join a dead religion that is definitely understood to be personal.

Pavlos

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

I think what I propose is a compromise because both sides get an agreeable psychological environment in which to enjoy their beliefs, and that is achieved without installing any huge barriers around large areas of discourse. Before the compromise, things look like this:

Believer: I am certain that God exists. This conviction makes me feel good. These horrible atheists are constantly arguing that it doesn't and insult me with "evidence". This is extremely offensive. Why do they think they know, and why do they insist on trying to demolish my conviction?
Atheist: Everything around us suggests that god is a myth. These stupid believers are not only deluded, they are dangerous! They cannot distingush the myth from fact and sometimes attempt to force others to subscribe to the myth, or make ruinous policies based on the myth e.g. anti-contraception.

After the suggested compromise, it looks like this:

Believer: I will go to church, worship the beutiful teachings of Christ, and feel spiritually strong and secure. Actually I know at a certain rational level that this is a psychological construct, but so what? It works loudly and clearly. I know that it would be foolish to try and make public policy or discuss the material world in this context. Atheists agree. They respect my spirituality and we get along very well.
Atheist: I feel liberated to live in a world that is not oppressed by myths. I too feel the need to engage in rituals sometimes, but much less frequently than the believers. I respect that their need for spirituality is stronger, and understand it would be grossly impolite to try and undermine their myths. I support the myths as valuable social constructs. I feel safe doing this because I know that all of us in fact agree to organize material things on rational grounds.

So it is definitely a compromise, at least at the psychological level. It is capitulation to rationalism at a logical level, but since when was logic the deciding factor in religious matters? I strongly believe (another personal opinion) that religious people are religious for psychological reasons and not for logical ones. In other words they are religious because it feels good or "right" and definitely not as a result of some rational analysis of observed facts. Rationalizing, they do, but not reasoning.

Admittedly, my compromise is much less realistic than the "we agree to differ" stalemate proposed earlier by David. My compromise has the advantage that useful and respectful discussion can progress on any aspect of life, and public policy can be arranged that accommodates everyone's preferences incuding the accommodation that some people need to be more surrounded by spirituality and some less.

I agree that we generally agree. Especially, I agree that I ascribe everyone with an extremely high ability of rational reflection into their own beliefs. That is why I think (reaffirming the first personal belief) that this compromise is unrealistic, not because my model of why people believe in god is inaccurate.

Pavlos

From:

feanelwa.livejournal.com

That's not two sets of people then, really, because they both believe the same as you do now! The whole point is that the religious people *wouldn't* agree to it because they really do put credence in the religion, and to them it really isn't just a set of rituals.

I don't consider David's proposition ot be a stalemate at all. I know lots of people who are religious, but we get on just fine. We have discussions about stuff like the nature of reality, and we don't end up shouting at each other at all. Most of them don't find their religion in conflict with logical thought, they're engineers and physicists and things and slot the two bits of life together perfectly.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

Hmmm... Then we have three theories that explain the behaviour of someone who claims to believe in god:

Interventionist Believer: This person really believes that there is a vaguely anthropomorphic God who actually runs the universe. They believe prayer and worship may help their material chances when they are in need. They believe that being ethical, leading a good life, etc. are important in getting you to heaven rather than hell. To the extent that they look after themselves in the material world it is because the Lord wants them to do that, rather than expect everything from him.
Non-interventionist Believer: This person believes that the material world functions rationally to the limits of our current senses, and takes care of their material needs on this basis. At the same time, they truly believe there is an abstract deity, who can perhaps be perceived, or who can perceive them, but who isn't at all likely to save them from drowning, send them to hell, etc. This deity is non-interventionist, and is compatible with both rationalism and agnosticism.
Dishonest Escapist: This person holds a rather inconsistent set of beliefs. At one level, and especially when in need, they believe there is a powerful antropomorphic deity who would listen to them when they pray, and who is in fact likely to keep them out of the worst of the harm. At another level, they can't fail to see that if they really want to get out of the crisis they'd better do it themselves - with, ummm..., God's help of course. They are equally selective when it comes to ethics, sometimes putting weight in the thought of heaven and sometimes ignoiring the idea of hell. Understandably, they don't like to dwell on the issue of how of how religion interacts with materialism.

Now, my own personal intuition, which I can't in any way prove, is that most present-day believers are of type 3. Type 1 might have been the majority in the Middle Ages, or in a present-day animist culture, but I personally think it is untenable in our Western societies. It would require a remarkable degree of faith, and the overall ethical conduct of religious people does not support this theory. Type 2 is perfectly compatible with our society and it may indeed be the case that many religious people are of this type, as firewoman seems to be suggesting. Personally I doubt it, simply because it involves a high degree of intellectual clarity (like my notion of a "compromise").

I simply think (again personal opinion) that type 3 is a much more likely explanation of religious behaviour because it is much less intellectually demanding (less faith and less consistency required) and seems to agree with the observation that religious people appear to mix actions that rely on an interventionist god with actions that ignore it as it suits their interests and psychological condition. Now, if these people were like our two friends in Amsterdam, they could admit the inconsistency and keep the spiritual/psychological benefits of their "belief" in god, while acknowledging that it's really in their minds and the world behaves materially. They could thus accept my compromise. I do think that most religious people are type 3, but not that they are like Paul and Alison, which I wish they were for more reasons than this!

Pavlos