Chaos, the Ability to Perceive Options

I promised this thread on another discussion thread and now...I have to deliver.
Just what makes Chaos Magic(k) chaotic?
We are beings with the ability to perceive many things but is Chaos one of them?
How, as organized life forms, are we able to conceptualize Chaos and then produce a 'system' of magic that utilizes this principle? (the idea of a 'system' implies order by its very nature)
A close friend and I are in the middle of this debate...he's a Molecular Biophysisist and I'm a dropout. He claims evidence of chaos exists in many ways and I've asked him to illustrate this. So far I've not heard of anything objective. True, we can say 'chaos' and write 'chaos' but we are doing so with the tools of order.
Let me bow out for awhile and let the over heated air cool and invite ideas from the Forum. Remember, this is a debate/discussion and we should agree to disagree rather than slinging shots! OK? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

Chaos and Order are abstracts steeped in semantical confusion. To discuss them like they are actual things is, in my opinion, worthless for anything other than entertainment.

They aren't being discussed as "things"; they're being discussed as concepts. Concepts are thoughts; thoughts are both " things" and precede things. Read up on the doctrine of emanation in Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Samkhya, and Tantra (IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif) and then we can discuss Order, Chaos, Existence, Consciousness, Thought, and Form and metaphor and how this relates to the concepts of Chaos and Order. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif) Chaos and Order (Cosmos) have distinct definitions that date back millennia and thus are not "steeped in semantical confusion." They are terms through which experience is explained. I think this chat board discussion (chat boards are for entertainment as well as informational purposes, btw) is discussing this and its importance in magical theory and application. In this discussion on Chaos we are, in part, exploring the role of consciousness, perception, and attention in explaining how and why things happen or exist (and the next step, how to willfully make things happens instead of being nuts and bolts in the Machine). The revelation then emerges is that things happen outside of human perception and frontal brain mechanisms and that existence is not really anthropocentric but is informed by impersonal forces and dynamics--concepts that boggle the human brain and thus form the basis of lively discussion. And also the big thought arises that all meaning (thoughts, concepts, parameters, paradigms, Ordering of things) is provisional--a concept that should be very liberating but also wigs out a lot of people--also giving rise to dynamic conceptualization and discussion. If for nothing else, conceptualizing grows neural pathways and staves off senile dementia.

They aren't being discussed as "things"; they're being discussed as concepts. Concepts are thoughts; thoughts are both " things" and precede things. Read up on the doctrine of emanation in Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Samkhya, and Tantra (IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif) and then we can discuss Order, Chaos, Existence, Consciousness, Thought, and Form and metaphor and how this relates to the concepts of Chaos and Order. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif) Chaos and Order (Cosmos) have distinct definitions that date back millennia and thus are not "steeped in semantical confusion." They are terms through which experience is explained. I think this chat board discussion (chat boards are for entertainment as well as informational purposes, btw) is discussing this and its importance in magical theory and application. In this discussion on Chaos we are, in part, exploring the role of consciousness, perception, and attention in explaining how and why things happen or exist (and the next step, how to willfully make things happens instead of being nuts and bolts in the Machine). The revelation then emerges is that things happen outside of human perception and frontal brain mechanisms and that existence is not really anthropocentric but is informed by impersonal forces and dynamics--concepts that boggle the human brain and thus form the basis of lively discussion. And also the big thought arises that all meaning (thoughts, concepts, parameters, paradigms, Ordering of things) is provisional--a concept that should be very liberating but also wigs out a lot of people--also giving rise to dynamic conceptualization and discussion. If for nothing else, conceptualizing grows neural pathways and staves off senile dementia.

I was not trying to condescend when I said it was for entertainment, and I feel as if you've interpreted my statement that way. In my personal opinion most human endeavor is little more than entertainment, and entertainment is a very worthwhile pursuit.


And yes, I'm fully aware that they are concepts that have been discussed throughout the centuries. However, they are not the only 'terms through which experience is explained.' Order and Chaos are terms we use to try and define facets of existence, but they are ultimately man-made and unnecessary. This is what I meant by 'things'(sorry for the sub-par rhetoric, I didn't mean to spark a discussion, merely to put in my two cents). When I used the word 'things' I was implying something with a definite, concrete, inescapable nature. A nature that I believe man-made concepts like Order and Chaos intrinsically lack.

As for semantical confusion, I meant that people have different views of what Chaos or Order even are. This very discussion has pointed out that there are differing views on the subject. And, for an even more literal example of semantics, the word chaos: which now is thought of as a great and unpredictable disorder, was originally thought of as a mere void, empty of all substance. If this difference in definition isn't an example of semantical confusion, I'd be hard-pressed to find one.

EDIT: In conclusion, if you are discussing them as abstracts subject to human perspective, then we have no disagreement. I believe this is the case, but I have been wrong before. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

This post has been edited by Dooley: Jan 26 2010, 03:04 PM