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.

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

So.... You come here wanting to bring science to the occult community. You employ said science as a tool for the "quantification" of magick. And now, I read this post stating that you do not agree with the scientific method and wish for people to embrace new and unique ways to understand occult phenomenon. Does this mean I was right in assuming that your post in my poll was just to agitate me? I mean why else would you have said that? It seems to me that you are someone who obtained a degree in some electronics related field, had a distaste for the occult, and wanted to vindicate your beliefs by gauging the intelligence of those in the occult community. Do you come here actively seeking an argument in which you can dissuade belief in magick? No, you come here and spout off redundant speeches that contradict everything you've done here so far, but say it in a way that has those with a lesser grasp of English and it's larger words following you in awe of your "intellect". And what of the more intelligent people on our forums? You bring up things that you have researched to an unhealthy extent under the context that if one could scientifically validate a pre-existing(and stated in the context) occult idea, then that would confirm with yourself and the scientific community that it must be true, therein testing the occult community to prove their beliefs. Such as happened with Vagrant. You knew that you already had the information and could easily word things to baffle others and either make them make a mistake or at least make them appear to have made a mistake, in logic or otherwise.

Regardless of how much of what I just said is justifiable or provable, I think it's fairly obvious that you are only here to annoy those of Pagan faiths, and to feel "intelligent" by confusing others with principles from a field they do not understand. Just like YOU do not understand magick. The occult does not seek to be scientifically proven. The occult needs no proof. Everyone has had experiences which cannot be measured or quantified and quite possibly could not have been experienced by others.

And furthermore, I think you are an outright prick.

I speak only for myself when I say this.