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

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

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

[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.

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!"

[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?

[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.

[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.

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)

[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.

[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.

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.

[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

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

...and Latimer is a totem?

*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.

[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

Re: And your point is...

[jhg.livejournal.com]

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.

Both my parents took the ideal world view you describe - let your children decide what's right for them.

All my schools, on the other hand, were strongly C of E (if that's not a contradiction in terms).

As it happens, my dad is atheist, and my mum is agnostic.

AFAIK, all my brothers and sisters are atheist or agnostic.

After a brief flirtation with christianity, I am now a confirmed atheist.

Does that show I've been influenced by close people?


J