Seeking A Mentor Options

I was wondering if anyone here teaches the system to individual students, I am new to this system but have felt a strong interest or pull if you will to get involved in it, my main problem is that I don't have any of the books and at present cannot afford to buy them, and I have read that the pdf versions have mispronunciations? In any event I would ordinarily not persue something under these circumstances but I am feeling a strong attraction to the system that I cannot explain, as I have never worked with it at all.

I have spent time with some other systems such as Initiation into Hermetics and Donald Michael Kraigs Modern Magick, and while they did give me some good theoretical insight into the world of magick, I just never felt a connection, my work under those systems just felt lifeless and clinical at times, so here I am, seeking a teacher and I will await any replies to this topic, I would also like to know why I feel such a pull toward the system practically out of nowhere if anyone can offer an explanation.

I should encourage all of us to think a bit beyond the version of "science" which was taught to us in high school. To assert that something is of a completely singular nature is to neglect other possibilities. To assert that there is one correct way of performing an experiment is to assert that all other ways are incorrect. Generally - this perspective inhibits one from different points of view.

Let us bring our attention to this "scientific method" which we have relied upon so heavily to support our opinions is not the "method of science".

The process of validating a phenomenon which is well described and understood (i.e. previously validated via experiment an arbitrarily large number of times) is a matter constructing an experiment which confines the desired phenomenon to a certain behavior. Most importantly, there may be great flexibility in experimental design from scientist to scientist when he/she is testing or observing some phenomenon. For example, Scientist A may investigate the properties of the electromagnetic field by measuring the magnetic helicity density in low density plasmas. Scientist B may investigate the properties of the electromagnetic field by measuring the CV characteristic of his newly fabricated MOS device. Both scientists have measured and demonstrated the electromagnetic field through their experiments.

The game is somewhat different when one is attempting to measure or describe something which is new to science. For example, there are hundreds of experiments in progress in solid state physics which are aimed at understanding the propagation of spin-waves in anti-ferromagnetic materials at low temperature. It is, in fact, to the advantage of the scientific community to engineer creative experiments around a certain phenomenon in order to gain a greater understanding of its workings.

I hope that I have eliminated in everyone the conception that science is always a straightforward process. There are (almost) no discontinuities in nature; the interrelationships are infinite. There are many correct ways of demonstrating some phenomenon of interest. There are just as many incorrect ways of demonstrating that phenomenon. The metric by which we determine "correctness" is that the phenomenon should be reproducible.

Let us endeavour to bring these concepts into our magicks. Let us not be overly concerned if we omit the copper crown from our Venuisian invocations, but let us not wear a crown of iron in its place. Be rigid to the traditional corresponds but do not your rigidity undermine your understanding and creativity, for this is the wisdom of science.

666-Sirius-666

This post has been edited by sirius666: Feb 9 2011, 09:00 PM

I should encourage all of us to think a bit beyond the version of "science" which was taught to us in high school. To assert that something is of a completely singular nature is to neglect other possibilities. To assert that there is one correct way of performing an experiment is to assert that all other ways are incorrect. Generally - this perspective inhibits one from different points of view.

I should encourage all of us to be a bit less condescending, and consider the actual nature of the experiment presently in question. The whole point here is: How to you know what to compare your results to if you don't reproduce the original experiment in the first place. You absolutely cannot compare them to anything based purely on description and theory when it comes to magic. That you will get some kind of result, presumably dependent on internal factors related to magical activity in general, is not in question, and never was. The question is, how can you claim the results that you achieve with your experiment are indicative of the efficacy of the Necronomicon specifically, if you yourself don't have a rule to measure by?

The process of validating a phenomenon which is well described and understood (i.e. previously validated via experiment an arbitrarily large number of times) .... Most importantly, there may be great flexibility in experimental design from scientist to scientist when he/she is testing or observing some phenomenon.

So far, there is no documented phenomenon to study, because in the example set by the previous several posts, no experiment was performed in the first place to validate the phenomenon claimed by the book in question. AFTER that experiment is tried out, and the individual has a baseline understanding of what CAN occur, THEN and ONLY THEN, can your further experimentation altering variables have any bearing on the phenomenon, because you can draw a line from 'point a' to 'point b' showing clearly that in the original case this happened, I changed this and such, and the same thing happened - or something different but comparable happened, let's explore the differences and find out why.

It is, in fact, to the advantage of the scientific community to engineer creative experiments around a certain phenomenon in order to gain a greater understanding of its workings.

Again, without an original experiment, what phenomenon are you referring to? The presence of the book, or what is actually claimed to occur as a result of it's application?

I hope that I have eliminated in everyone the conception that science is always a straightforward process. There are (almost) no discontinuities in nature; the interrelationships are infinite. There are many correct ways of demonstrating some phenomenon of interest. There are just as many incorrect ways of demonstrating that phenomenon. The metric by which we determine "correctness" is that the phenomenon should be reproducible.

Well, for one, I'd like to see some references backing up your interpretation here: That there does not need to be an initial phenomenon observed in order to validate that phenomenon or explore the role of the many variables therein. Because in the last few posts, that is exactly what has been claimed.

Let us endeavour to bring these concepts into our magicks. Let us not be overly concerned if we omit the copper crown from our Venuisian invocations, but let us not wear a crown of iron in its place. Be rigid to the traditional corresponds but do not your rigidity undermine your understanding and creativity, for this is the wisdom of science.

666-Sirius-666

If you've performed the original experiment, then I would suggest that you can replace the copper crown with an iron one to see what happens. It may be that the crown must be made of metal, not specifically copper, and that there was a cultural, but not operational, reason for using the copper crown in the first place. But, you don't know that if you omit the crown, because you don't know what happens when you use a copper one. Anything could happen, there's no way to know without doing the experiment.

The wisdom of science begins with: Observation. You have to observe a phenomenon in the first place in order to form a hypothesis and experiment with it's variables at all. If not, you're not doing science, you're guessing and cobbling things together hoping to get some kind of result.

Consider: Let's say that some individual claims to have discovered a new form of matter. However, they observed it without any kind of tools, etc. So, all you have is this individual's claim. The first thing that any scientist would do, is try to observe the phenomenon. They would either go to the same place where this individual claimed to discover it, or if he can say how to observe it, they would implement the same measures to begin with in order to observe the new discovery. After observations are collected, hypotheses arise and experimentation to test them begins.

It baffles me that the observation step is being argued against at all. You both seem to have a scientific leaning towards cataloging and observing magical rituals and effects - well, monk man at least, I don't know about Sirius' magical methodology - and yet you are both advocating skipping the initial observation all together. There is no scientific reasoning that does not begin with observation, and part of observation is determining what it is you are observing. Until you perform the original experiment, you don't know what you are observing is supposed to be compared to.

peace