Real Ultimate Power, A Magical Flowchart Options

(IMG:http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/518/realup.png)

Human consciousness is defined by its relationship to other consciousnesses, with measurable qualities, not by whatever worldviews someone might have. This opinion is a hodgepodge of ambiguous buzz words.

Also absence of evidence can't just be assumed universally to be evidence of absence. Reality isn't Plato's version of philosopher's heaven (that's not sarcasm I'm being literal).

Despite your self proclaimed hatred for faith, you seem to base most of your arguments on just that. From what I have read, I see you are not practicing magic, you are playing with it. I don't want to write out long winded explanations because I want to emphasize that main point. If you were you serious about magic you would try to overcome the issues of using structures and being concise. Being aware and joking about faults doesn't make those faults okay to leave alone.

I'm sorry, but the rubber will never meet the road unless you become serious. It's like when people talk about working out or running every day but never do. Well when the rubber meets the road they sure don't get very far or lift very much, but they sure will be happy to tell everyone how to improve their form or do better! That's what you're doing here with magic and philosophy and science.

Finally, science is not the pursuit of truth, that's what philosophy is. (And philosophy is in between religion and science, as Bertrand Russell said.) Science deals with physical reality. If it's not measurable then it's not science and noone can measure "truth" in quantifiable terms.

Human consciousness is defined by its relationship to other consciousnesses, with measurable qualities, not by whatever worldviews someone might have.

I don't disagree with the first part of your comment, but I don't see the sharp conflict you seem to add at the end. Human consciousness can be defined by arbitrarily describing any of myriad axis which make up a very complex whole, ill suited to being encapsulated in a single sentence.

But besides that, I think you completely missed the tidbit that my bringing up a "world view" in that paragraph, was entirely within a metaphor. A metaphor can be anything. What does an pepperoni pizza have to do consciousness? Anything you want it to, if it's just a metaphor.

My point about consciousness is that when we think of consciousness, we think of a particular sort of consciousness which is uniquely human in a variety of ways. And we are largely ignorant of the broader possibilities for the scope of what could be called consciousness in the multiverse.

This opinion is a hodgepodge of ambiguous buzz words.

no, no, tell me what you really think.
well I don't have to worry about you being a kiss ass, eh?
that's actually kind of a compliment. backhanded, but still.

There are a great many things which I think about and ponder and study, which are challenging to quantify. I often struggle to find even halfway serviceable terms. If the particular words I fell upon while trying to quantify some ideas, were 'buzzing' too much for your tastes... erf. you know, I'm just not feeling the whole 'sarcastic sparing' thing right now. It's been kind of a long day.

Also absence of evidence can't just be assumed universally to be evidence of absence.

it is 'evidence' of absence. it's not conclusive, at all, not even remotely close. in some cases it's very weak evidence indeed. but it is 'evidence', strictly speaking.
there are an infinite number of things for which we have no evidence, which are true.

if you were to testify in court that you went to a particular place on a particular day, and I was there that day for 5 minutes, and I didn't see you. That would be (extremely inconclusive) evidence that you may not have been there. But if I were there 12 hours, it's still not proof, but it's evidence. if there were a million people there and none of them saw you, or if i were there all day watching for you and never saw you, then the absence of evidence would mount into a more conclusive evidence of absence. without a specified place and time frame, absence of evidence can never be conclusive. but it's still evidence, technically. I really think this is a semantics argument though.

Reality isn't Plato's version of philosopher's heaven (that's not sarcasm I'm being literal).

well, we're on the same page there.
If I strike you as an idealist, then I guess I'd reply: were you blind, and were you to touch an elephant's tusk, would you assume that elephants entire, are hard bony things?
or without the parable reference: you're assuming an awful lot about me I think.

Despite your self proclaimed hatred for faith, you seem to base most of your arguments on just that.

ok, this sentence doesn't go with the others that were with it below... I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this.
a little bit incredulous, but curious.

From what I have read, I see you are not practicing magic, you are playing with it.

I do usually enjoy a certain playfulness in my approach to life the universe and everything.
we all have our curses to bear.

I don't want to write out long winded explanations because I want to emphasize that main point.

blah, go ahead and be long winded. just underline the key bits. I'll read it all.
If you like, we can skip witty jabs and grandstanding though. And I do mean "we", I'm not trying to sound parental there. I'm 'doing it back' obviously (you did peg me as being kinda playful).
but my main point, is that you clearly have ideas about what I expressed, and I am curious about some of your thoughts. moreso preferably without the rhetoric.

If you were you serious about magic you would try to overcome the issues of using structures and being concise.

"if you were serious about magic..." that part kinda nukes the whole sentence. You have no idea what you're talking about with that phrase. Look, I'll take the blame, I'm communicating to the forum with these posts above, and many others on the forum, etc. and if I strike you as someone who's not serious about magick, then I'm really failing miserably as a communicator.

Now, when you say "using structures" are you referring to dedication to study in a regimented ceremonial magick system? I'd like to make sure I clearly understand what you mean, before responding to that bit. I don't want to read assumptions into anything, i think that may be part of the cause of some of your discontent with my posts in this thread.

Being aware and joking about faults doesn't make those faults okay to leave alone.

depends on the fault.
some faults are rather charming.
and sometimes "fault" is in the eye of the beholder. perhaps always. We may have a somewhat different view of 'faults'.
anyway I don't see any overt need to be a concise writer in my spiritual path, that's just not one of the stops on my route.

I'm sorry, but the rubber will never meet the road unless you become serious. It's like when people talk about working out or running every day but never do. Well when the rubber meets the road they sure don't get very far or lift very much, but they sure will be happy to tell everyone how to improve their form or do better! That's what you're doing here with magic and philosophy and science.

I don't think you're actually sorry about my rubber...
but again, I have perhaps failed miserably to communicate.

This thread's discussion has focused a fair amount on verifiability, and/or on the idea of tangible results (a la "fireballs").
I've spent a lot of time talking about some content from my spiritual path going back as far as early childhood, as well as a lot of precursory meanderings in science and philosophy. Some of what I've talked about is very basic stuff, or even kinda naive early thoughts on topics, because they are closer to an entry-level rationally verifiable basis for the somewhat cynical layman.

I am sharing bits of my occult background in a selective manner, suited to the discourse in this thread.
book, cover, etc.

My spiritual path didn't really come into it's stride until around 2001. And it's progressed at a speed I am humbly appreciative of, with very few plateaus. I'm not going to brag, I haven't achieved my ultimate spiritual goals yet, and I don't like to focus on accomplishments when there's still shit to be done. besides, bragging is petty. suffice to say, I am not at all unhappy with my progress, especially given the ambitiousness of my goals. And I am quietly optimistic for my spiritual future.

I would swallow my pride, and ask you how you think I could improve my spiritual path... in spite of your tone, I would eat crow and ask, if I had actually shared a meaningful chunk of it for you to have any basis for speculating. And if you made good sense, it would brighten my day, and I'd feel more like verbally sparring with you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif) . I just don't see how my posts in this thread could be remotely informative towards the overarching whole, and trajectory, of my spiritual path. Everything I've said here is just bits and pieces tailored to the cynical novice. As I was a cynical novice once, a very long time ago.

I assure you, I am deadly serious about my magick, and my spiritual evolution. Deadly. Serious.
I don't openly discuss just how serious, because it's not socially constructive to seem like a crazy zealot. and that wouldn't have made for a constructive conversation in this thread I don't think.

Finally, science is not the pursuit of truth, that's what philosophy is. (And philosophy is in between religion and science, as Bertrand Russell said.) Science deals with physical reality. If it's not measurable then it's not science and noone can measure "truth" in quantifiable terms.

Science deals with "reality", nothing explicit about 'physical' (*cough*math*cough*psychology*cough*theoreticalphysics*cough*)
It is my belief that where science sheds light on that which we understand, the unknown stands within reality just out of science's reach, and the arcane represents the portions of reality which are further beyond science's current ability to make sound conjecture or hypothesis, or perhaps even beyond science's imagination.

But if something exists, whether you can see it and touch it, or it's etheric and hard to quantify... then it's all part of 'reality'. and even if it's on the arcane end of the spectrum, it's on the same continuum with science, and it is (or should be) science's interest.

Science is concerned with truth. they may call it 'fact', but you're really just drawing a semantic distinction. when philosophy discusses truth, it's usually a subject of relativism and ideology. when science is looking for the truth of something, they're using a far more plainspoken version of the word.

is philosophy halfway between science and religion?
eh, considering organized religion is largely a hybrid between a collective mythos, a social control structure, a paradigm virus, and a super egregore... I'm not sure I'd want to compare it with anything else.
don't worry, it's ok to disagree with Bertrand Russel, i've disagreed with numerous famous people in the past (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)




I get the idea that something I said in my posts really kinda peed in your cheerios. I'm not sure what thing I said did that, but sorry about your cheerios k?