Subj : [ 9/15] Newsgroups: alt.pagan.magick
To   : RACHEL L. AKERS
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Tue Feb 20 2001 12:01 am

>    05.01: can you prove that magic exists?
> 
>      the question is ambiguous, since the terms 'prove' and 'magic'
>      (by any spelling) are contested as to their meaning, varying
>      widely across the spectrum of esoteric and scientific study,
>      from academic to popular social circles.
> 
>      fantasy role-playing game types of effects (magic) visible to
>      the video camera cannot be demonstrated (proven) to the
>      skeptical inquirer. at best they may be achieved within the
>      realm of imagination sometimes called 'the astral plane'. the
>      childhood game of 'make believe' may play an integral role in
>      how magic works. any extraordinary effects are considered
>      below.


Interesting. The above paragraph just said that magic is nothing more than
a figment of the 
imagination. I'm surprised that a pro-occult source would say such a thing.

Comments?


>      psychospiritual effects achieved through the use of ritual
>      symbolism (magic) are very difficult to verify (prove), and it
>      may be hundreds of years before a scientific approach to
>      mysticism is ever achieved in any depth and the charlatanry is
>      winnowed from the reality. for now, skeptical groups are


But if the earlier paragraph already assigned "magic" as a figment of the
imagination, then this 
paragraph is basically talking about the psychological effects of the
imagination. That sounds 
more like garden-variety psychology than paganism. It also seems to claim
that since such 
symbolism is mere imagination, then the the gods/goddesses are just
imaginary symbols that 
don't exist. I'm not sure how many pagans would really agree with that
though.


>      forging standards based on the technics of illusion (stage
>      magic) that serve to expose the charlatans more easily. cf.
>      the key term 'skeptic' in the Gehennom Goo (which you can
>      find at
> 
>                 http://www.luckymojo.com/magi/goo.html ).
> 
>      a reservoir of energy that may be drawn upon to achieve
>      supranormal or supernatural effects (magic) has never been
>      demonstrated to exist (proven), though many mystical and
>      magical cosmologies seem to rely upon it for their support
>      (e.g. prana, chi, 'the force', etc.). in any case, the concept
>      of something being 'supernatural' is illogical and based on
>      quite limited ideas of what constitutes 'the natural world'.


So far, this article seems to relegate the "supernatural" to the realm of
imagination. That seems 
insulting to pagans, because it claims that pink elephants are in the same
category as their 
magical system. How many pagans would actually agree to that?


>      systems of psychospiritual transformation (magic), whatever
>      their success, can easily be demonstrated (proven) to exist,
>      and their elements vary considerably based on the culture and
>      time of their construction. often they are differentiated
>      based on taxonomical or traditional labels (e.g. 'Solomonic
>      magic' and 'Chaos magick').
> 
>      esoteric philosophy designed to inspire the location and
>      activation of the personal will (magic) is very easy to
>      identify and comprehend (prove) by the diligent, though to
>      what their application leads (ultimately a subjective effect
>      of study and discipline) is still debated even in the occult
>      communities dedicated to their study.


Going by the perception of magic that this article gave (being that it is
just a figment of 
imagination), then it does bring up the question of exactly what it is that
causes such activation 
of personal will? It seems that if magic is nothing more than the workings
of the imagination, 
then pagan magic is nothing more than ideas and philosophy that are
explained in symbolic 
terms. It would mean that all the symbols, gods/goddess, spirits, spells,
etc are really just 
things that people made up in order to convey some philosophy which is
designed to teach the 
person some form of ideology.  How man pagans here would actually agree
what this article is 
implying?

If this is true, then "magic" is nothing more than philosophy. 


>      there are practical limitations to what may be 'proven' to any
>      given individual. one may always find a way to justify denying
>      anything that what one wishes. there is no way around this
>      kind of 'skepticism'. one may set one's blinders (or
>      spectacles) at the strength one prefers and nobody else will
>      be able to affect them until some set of criteria (terms of
>      proof) are agreed upon by those disputing the matter.


But this article itself feeds the fires of skepticism, because it already
said that magic is just the 
imagination. Therefore, the only real effects that "magic" has would be a
change in belief 
patterns in the practicer. 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.