"working Model" Options

Imagine if you will, a monkey (lets call him George) in a laboratory cage. Now imagine that a lab technician (lets call him Frank) sets up a device within the cage, which consists of a lever and a chute from which bananas will drop into the cage when the lever is pulled.

In time, George will become aware of the cause & effect relationship of pulling the lever and receiving a banana. But HOW does it work? what brings the reward? How will George explain this newfound sense of causality?

Lets say that George understands the lever to be the phalus of the banana god, Nanner. (now many centuries later, monkeykind will debate at great length whether the lever is truly Nanner's penis by way of transubstantiation, or whether it is merely the symbol of Nanner's universal phallic-ness... but I digress). It is the understanding of George, that if Nanner's phallus is fondled, Nanner will rain down the blessing of curved yellow fruit on the faithful fondler. And so, George's reality is understood to be a small world, with bars at its edges, ruled over by the benevolent god Nanner, who rewards his faithful.

Now then, is George right? Is it actually Nanner who gives him bananas? Or is it just a few gears and a trapdoor? To us, the question seems pretty silly. BUT, George's version of things is an excellent "Working Model". You can say that George's ideology is askew, but when he pulls Nanners yingyang, it rains bananas, immediately. And that's pretty darn powerful magic if you really think about it. It 'works', even if its not true.

The point of all this, is that the issue of 'truth', is not the same as the issue of 'effectiveness'. And further, beyond this, is the larger realization that effectiveness can lead to delusions of truth!

Because of the potency and reliability of George's 'Nanner Magic', he will probably never come to question the validity of his paradigm. And because Frank loads the banana chute every Tuesday, he too will never question the validity of his own concept of what causes bananas to fall from the chute. George will never stop to think, "is it just some mechanical device?". And Frank will never stop to think "am I really just an agent of Nanner's will?".

Of course this is why, on the final day of reckoning, when Nanner begins his reign on earth, Frank will be put up against the wall and peeled with the rest of the nonbelievers.

I really only intended this thread to explain in a very simple analogy how there is often a disparity between "truth" and "magick that works". And that as magicians, we should not confuse things that work with 'truth', nor confuse 'truth' with what can be made to work.

it's not intended as an ethical debate really.
But since you bring it up, insinuating that any pursuit of effectiveness is blind to ethical consideration, and is like a scientist murdering his children with superior bombs... is pretty out there. Why not tell Sony that because they invent blue ray disks which are 'better' than DVD's, that they're killing children with their blind lust of self improvement without compassion or foresight? Aside from being off topic, it's a 'horrible' argument from the standpoint of applying logic.

I like the permutations of george though, very humorous.

This post has been edited by Kath: Jun 24 2010, 09:04 AM