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

Re: I doubt it

[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.

Re: I doubt it

[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