Jump to content


- - - - -

Calling all Ceremonial Magicians: A Group Working Experiment.


59 replies to this topic

#41 Mr. Ibis

    Enigma

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 29 October 2009 - 07:32 PM

The cynical, counter-pointed nonsense is going to kill the point of this good idea pretty quickly.

The qaballistic 'nonsense' isn't pointless, and the symbolism in that is important, no matter if you're doing a ritual with objective descriptions in mind. Each symbol has something to say, and anyone who has put a concious Joy and Effort into the traditional symbolisms will understand that. The hours/planets/months, etc, do mean something, but that something may not be as in your face as the something realized by say, vibrating a Name of Power. Everything counts, and the nature of the Art is not Your nature. The effects may be subtle or completely unseen, but they may have a purpose on a level that isn't as in your face as say, again, the Vibrating.

Still, I've experienced objectified results in other ways - this is still a great idea. The details are important, but the Personal way you employ what they symbolize is MORE important. As long as everyone can agree upon a generalized symbol set, or at least a similar metasymbolic reality structure, it'll be compatable.
Twice-Great; 4°=7; Approaching the City of the Pyramids[Frater I]

...whose number may be x.. x.

"You must give an i for an Eye, and this in the Tower whose name is Ayin. The Eye is glorified in EHIEH... I AM... EYE AUM, for only in Silence is the Eye glorified."
- words of the twice-blessed.

Posted Image


#42 080

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 433 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 07:43 AM

0 and 2 said:

Quote

I hope people really think about these things instead of simply getting giddy at the idea and pretending like we're all being scientific about magick when we clearly are not.

i don't know if anybody is giddy... however i would hope that those keen on "scientific illuminism' would make every attempt to apply the scientific method to their research even if the subject dooms the attempt to failure. otherwise why is it called "scientific illuminism" rather than simply "record it in your diary illuminism".

validity in research (particularly in the social and psychological sciences) is not an all or none thing.. it is about doing what you can to decrease the probability that results are caused by uncontrolled factors and chance. even one survey can be more valid (and so more interesting) than another even if ultimately neither as scientifically conclusive as an experiment in physics. in this instance there are many uncontrolled factors, however there are some further factors that can be controlled to increase the validity of the results.

lets have a look at those you have raised:
a) We have no way to determine the skill level of the magicians involved
-- individuals are infinitely varied however it may still be possible to demonstrate effects by comparing the individual before and after the particular event.
:) We have no way to determine whether everyone performs even the same external actions & words, let alone the same internal visualizations, etc.
-- again, the comparison is within rather than between individuals.
c) We have no way to determine a uniform way to communicate these results. People consistently fail to describe their experiences as eyewitnesses in court testimony, and this is testifying about concrete physical occurences. Its harder when talking about more subtle things, especially when people tend towards metaphor and being extremely obscure.
-- this is alway a propblem when researching perceptual experience. a set of scaled surveys would assist comparisons.. open ended material could be analysed for nominal data.
d) People embellish their results to make themselves feel better and to make htemselves look cooler/more acceptable/respectable
-- this is always a possiblity with any survey.. it can be controlled by a few little tricks.
e) There is no uniform way to report these results (is there some form everyone is going to fill out?)
-- yes a form could be created... perhaps designed specifically to allow some form of non-parametric analysis should there be sufficent numbers of participants.
f) The apparent 'similarities' could easily be explained away at once by the very important truth that I am guessing most of us have read similar books, especially on Hermetic Qabalah for example, and so it would be expected to have similar results. It would be most interesting to see the results on someone who has not been exposed to all the symbolic nonsense, etc. but that is close to impossible
-- it depends upon what you are measuring. you might want to investigate reported vividness solo vs group, or number of instances of traditional association solo vs group.
g) There is no theoretical underpinning to this working in the sense that there is no hypothesis, no demarcations of validity (at what point do we say 'ok, that just failed'), no ways of measuring efficacy or degrees of efficacy, no way of measuring anything really. '
-- well participants don't generally know the experiementer's hypothesis... you no doubt know RifRaf intentions more clearly than i but there does seem to be some tacit hypothesis behind the experiment (even if it has not been formally stated as x has effects on y).

again, i am not giddy that this will demonstrate anything... i do however think that there are ways of making the survey more valid even if ultimately the result falls well short of being completely scientific. if nothing else it will demonstrate the limitations of the scientific method in relation to organic beings.

pass our regards to IAO.

#43 somewhere forgotten

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 421 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 09:24 AM

i think the whole point is to see the differences of people's work and interpretation in thier results. *sigh*
If everyone done the same thing at the exact same time under the same conditions the experiment wouldnt be worth doing anyway.
02 04 | 03 05
06 08 | 07 09
12 14 | 11 13

#44 Frater F.C.

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 150 posts

Posted 30 October 2009 - 01:31 PM

I should point out to 0 and 2 that if I want to be genuinely scientific about magic, I'm not going to do it with a bunch of strangers on a discussion board where I have no way to verify the validity of their claims. I just view this as a fun exercise and an opportunity to compare notes and practices.

#45 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 31 October 2009 - 03:14 AM

0 and 2 said:

1) Planetary hours are nonsense. Every system is different and they're all based on superstition.
2) The idea of paths being subjective and sephiroth objective is from Dion Fortune and makes little to no sense if you think about it for a second. What does it even mean for Sephiroth to be objective? Its a sphere floating around in the physical world? I dont think so... It refers to something real? Just as much as the paths do/can...

I hope people really think about these things instead of simply getting giddy at the idea and pretending like we're all being scientific about magick when we clearly are not.

1) Agreed
2) The Sephiroth are forces in nature or the Universe, that is how I have always seen it, although a lot of what they encompass is subjective as well. I think Fortune was trying to point out that the Path's represent modes of consciousness and the Sephiroth represent forces of nature, outside of ourselves, and our idea of nature within.

Quote

a) We have no way to determine the skill level of the magicians involved
;) We have no way to determine whether everyone performs even the same external actions & words, let alone the same internal visualizations, etc.
c) We have no way to determine a uniform way to communicate these results. People consistently fail to describe their experiences as eyewitnesses in court testimony, and this is testifying about concrete physical occurences. Its harder when talking about more subtle things, especially when people tend towards metaphor and being extremely obscure.
d) People embellish their results to make themselves feel better and to make htemselves look cooler/more acceptable/respectable
e) There is no uniform way to report these results (is there some form everyone is going to fill out?)
f) The apparent 'similarities' could easily be explained away at once by the very important truth that I am guessing most of us have read similar books, especially on Hermetic Qabalah for example, and so it would be expected to have similar results. It would be most interesting to see the results on someone who has not been exposed to all the symbolic nonsense, etc. but that is close to impossible
g) There is no theoretical underpinning to this working in the sense that there is no hypothesis, no demarcations of validity (at what point do we say 'ok, that just failed'), no ways of measuring efficacy or degrees of efficacy, no way of measuring anything really. '

a) True, I am only going on what they say.
-_- I don't want people to picture the same internal visualizations, but I would like everyone to attempt to perform the same acts of Ritual together.
c) This is a good point and one I didn't address. I do not want anyone to be obscure in their records, I would like all of you to point out the sensations you felt, anything you heard or "seen", any physical phenomena and emotional changes. No one should be sending in records that say "I witnessed the symbol for love being held by an angel", instead you should simply type out what you seen, the way the symbol looked and the way that the entity holding it looked, not what you feel these things represent.
d) Yes, people do embellish their results, especially on the internet. I am hoping to weed these people out (if there are any) by reading through their results and then questioning them on certain aspects of it. Hopefully by the time we get to later experiments people like this won't be involved.
e) I don't know yet. I was probably going to type up a template that everyone could fill out, but I am not sure yet.
f) This is fine with me, it is actually one of the main reasons I am doing this.
g) Yea, it is pretty open ended but that's fine for now, I am not getting graded on this.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#46 somewhere forgotten

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 421 posts

Posted 31 October 2009 - 03:39 AM

well whatever the case. We have one week left. So we should start sumarising exactly what we will be doing together and not doing together, and how it is all put forward after. As it is Rif Raf's suggestion I am quite happy for him to tell us now and then if we think of a better way we can either opt out or suggest it. But I think that a clear outline should be given now so that we have time to alter it (if needed) to fit the participants requirements.

arguing about whether the experiment is viable or not scientific is nonsense. who cares. this is a magic forum not a physics forum.

The only thing that I am worried about was your(Rif Raf) statement that people may not be involved in furter experiments if their replies are deemed false. I do understand what you mean of course it is better if people do not embelish. Its just hard to see you can know when we are of varying degrees and styles.
02 04 | 03 05
06 08 | 07 09
12 14 | 11 13

#47 A Rogue Spirit

    Hedge Witch & Phytotherapist

  • Gold Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • LocationChandler, Arizona

Posted 02 November 2009 - 01:49 AM

I have to take a leap from this one. ;) I am in a bit of pain right now. Sun burnt...really bad. I can hardly sit. lol I don't think by the 7th I will be able to prep for it. I need to get to a store and that requires, in my case, walking a distance to get there.

Good luck and I'll defiantly be interested in the results of this, but as of now I don't believe I can participate. :)


ARS

Links

UNITED PLANT SAVERS - I suggest anyone with a passion for the life given to us
and sustained by the Earth join and help fund plant sanctuaries
all around for endangered, at risked, and watched plants.


#48 MagiAwen

    Practitioner of Spirit

  • Gold Member
  • 634 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 04:04 PM

Once all the "ducks are in a row"....someone please send me a PM of when and what or whatever is decided will be done, thanks.
"You never realize how many crumbs there are in crackers until you eat them in bed naked. ~MagiAwen

#49 0 and 2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 04:35 PM

[quote name='Mr. Ibis']The cynical, counter-pointed nonsense is going to kill the point of this good idea pretty quickly. [/quote]

Its not cynical, its holding it up to its own standards. If you want to claim this is scientific in the least, how about some modicum of rigor and skepticism? Scientists will argue for months about how to set up an experiment when the experiment itself can take moments - think about that.

Ill be the 'bad guy' and continue to ask the questions any basic scientist would of your experiments.

[quote]The qaballistic 'nonsense' isn't pointless, and the symbolism in that is important, no matter if you're doing a ritual with objective descriptions in mind. Each symbol has something to say, and anyone who has put a concious Joy and Effort into the traditional symbolisms will understand that.[/quote]

They really have nothing to do with science though. Sure symbols have something to say - Its not like I ignore the traffic signs because I think symbolism is pointless... Lets be real here...

[quote] The hours/planets/months, etc, do mean something, but that something may not be as in your face as the something realized by say, vibrating a Name of Power.[/quote]

They 'mean something' how? Just because you assert something to be true doesnt make it so. In my experience - and Ive actually done experiments - the hour of the day has absolutely nothing to do with planetary energies and everything to do with when oyu last slept, when you last ate, how much sunlight has already occurred, etc. Those are all very simple naturalistic things that any scientist would agree exist and exert influence - hourly tattwa/planetary currents on the other hand...

[quote] Everything counts, and the nature of the Art is not Your nature. The effects may be subtle or completely unseen, but they may have a purpose on a level that isn't as in your face as say, again, the Vibrating. [/quote]

This is, I thought, the 'Science' half of the Science & Art of Causing Change in conformity with Will. If you want, Art have fun. What I am saying doesn't apply to art. But if you want to claim your magick is scientific in the least, let's not kid ourselves about it. What I am saying isn't cynical - again, its holding this thread up to its own standards. I am quite certain it was created as an impetus to attempt a scientific sort of working, not as something to have fun and have as an art piece. Then again, I could be wrong, RifRaf?

[quote]Still, I've experienced objectified results in other ways - this is still a great idea.[/quote]

The second half doesn't follow form the first half of your sentence, but OK.

[quote] The details are important, but the Personal way you employ what they symbolize is MORE important. [/quote]

No, it really isn't. I am wondering what you are thinking about as you are posting in a thread that is entirely about being scientific and rigorous about these expeirments and not being 'Make it personal so ti works!' sort of b.s.

[quote] As long as everyone can agree upon a generalized symbol set, or at least a similar metasymbolic reality structure, it'll be compatable.[/QUOTE]

It will be it will be sloppy and obtuse and you won't get any information from it whatsoever. I'm sorry but I've run quite a few experiments in my day, and helped teach basic science to children and some people in this thread are failing at grasping some very basic ideas. If you want to test something, you aren't using magick as art or as personal-whatever - if you want to test it, oyu should do it right.


[quote]i don't know if anybody is giddy... however i would hope that those keen on "scientific illuminism' would make every attempt to apply the scientific method to their research even if the subject dooms the attempt to failure. otherwise why is it called "scientific illuminism" rather than simply "record it in your diary illuminism".[/quote]

Thank you.

[quote]validity in research (particularly in the social and psychological sciences) is not an all or none thing.. it is about doing what you can to decrease the probability that results are caused by uncontrolled factors and chance. even one survey can be more valid (and so more interesting) than another even if ultimately neither as scientifically conclusive as an experiment in physics. in this instance there are many uncontrolled factors, however there are some further factors that can be controlled to increase the validity of the results.[/quote]

Yet you are surveying 'beliefs' and things like that - you can easily test physical occurences which are in the realm of physics and biology. For example, I am sure all of us know occultists claim to heal people with magick or energy or whatever. This should be easily detectable with the most basic equipment in a doctor's office, but no one bothers because of various excuses.

[quote]
lets have a look at those you have raised:
a) We have no way to determine the skill level of the magicians involved
-- individuals are infinitely varied however it may still be possible to demonstrate effects by comparing the individual before and after the particular event.[/quote]

That essentially destroys the entire experiment. To test someone before and after is not to test intra-subjective results. Further, you have no 'control' or baseline for any of this. So what if he is 'different' later? It could be that he ate a lot of pizza and that did the trick, or perhaps at the beginning he was on the diet. And how are we measuring these 'effects' we are 'demonstrating'?

[quote]:) We have no way to determine whether everyone performs even the same external actions & words, let alone the same internal visualizations, etc.
-- again, the comparison is within rather than between individuals.[/quote]

Then you are not talking about the same experiment everyone on this thread is talking about, and see above.

[quote]c) We have no way to determine a uniform way to communicate these results. People consistently fail to describe their experiences as eyewitnesses in court testimony, and this is testifying about concrete physical occurences. Its harder when talking about more subtle things, especially when people tend towards metaphor and being extremely obscure.
-- this is alway a propblem when researching perceptual experience. a set of scaled surveys would assist comparisons.. open ended material could be analysed for nominal data.[/quote]

Perhaps, but this is a problem nonetheless and giving people surveys rather introduces more variables than eliminates them...

[quote]d) People embellish their results to make themselves feel better and to make htemselves look cooler/more acceptable/respectable
-- this is always a possiblity with any survey.. it can be controlled by a few little tricks. [/quote]

No, it can't. Please inform me how to control human nature of embellishing facts about yourself. After majoring in Psychology at a university, and personally doing survey studies among others, I am not aware of such 'tricks.'

[quote]e) There is no uniform way to report these results (is there some form everyone is going to fill out?)
-- yes a form could be created... perhaps designed specifically to allow some form of non-parametric analysis should there be sufficent numbers of participants.[/quote]

Why would this matter to you if you think people should only be compared with themselves? Either way, a form or something standard is needed but I am guessing this will never be produced.

[quote]f) The apparent 'similarities' could easily be explained away at once by the very important truth that I am guessing most of us have read similar books, especially on Hermetic Qabalah for example, and so it would be expected to have similar results. It would be most interesting to see the results on someone who has not been exposed to all the symbolic nonsense, etc. but that is close to impossible
-- it depends upon what you are measuring. you might want to investigate reported vividness solo vs group, or number of instances of traditional association solo vs group.[/quote]

What would that show but an empty number? Say you got 100 occultists to all do this perfectly - chances are you will not get 10 - and 60 reported visions that corresponded with traditional associations and 40 did not. So what? Those 60 perhaps are more focused on Qabalah in their studies and read more - perhaps the 40 are more creative or less bound by tradition? There are 100 ways to interpret that data and most experiments - in fact all of them I know of - eliminate all this nonsense wehre we are asking a milion questions at once: you need to ask one question, have one hypothesis, and focus on that. Think about how you would account for 2 variables, let alone the 30 or so that are appearing...

[quote]g) There is no theoretical underpinning to this working in the sense that there is no hypothesis, no demarcations of validity (at what point do we say 'ok, that just failed'), no ways of measuring efficacy or degrees of efficacy, no way of measuring anything really. '
-- well participants don't generally know the experiementer's hypothesis... you no doubt know RifRaf intentions more clearly than i but there does seem to be some tacit hypothesis behind the experiment (even if it has not been formally stated as x has effects on y).[/quote]

Then let it be not tacit and be openly stated...

[quote]again, i am not giddy that this will demonstrate anything... i do however think that there are ways of making the survey more valid even if ultimately the result falls well short of being completely scientific. if nothing else it will demonstrate the limitations of the scientific method in relation to organic beings.[/quote]

I am writing all of this because I appreciate RifRaf's attempt and idea. I think this is the kind of thinking needed to get people to become Scientific illuminists instead of mere math-mongering occultists. I want this to work and want people to be aware of how difficult a basic scientific experiment is, and I dont want people to think they've accomplish some scientific feat when they've really just had a story time about their experineces.

[quote]pass our regards to IAO.[/QUOTE]

(Sign of silence)


[quote name='somewhere forgotten']i think the whole point is to see the differences of people's work and interpretation in thier results. *sigh*
If everyone done the same thing at the exact same time under the same conditions the experiment wouldnt be worth doing anyway.[/QUOTE]

The whole point is to conduct a scientific experiment - how you missed that, I do not know. What you say this is is exactly what it is not and what you say is not worth doing is exactly what this is.
"Know that to be indestructible which pervades all this; the destruction of that inexhaustible principle none can bring about. These bodies appertaining to the embodied self which is eternal, indestructible, and indefinable, are said to be perishable; therefore do engage in battle..."

"The Soul, being a brilliant Fire, by the power of the Father remaineth immortal, and is Mistress of Life, and filleth up the many recesses of the bosom of the World."

#50 0 and 2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 04:42 PM

RifRaf said:

1) Agreed
2) The Sephiroth are forces in nature or the Universe, that is how I have always seen it, although a lot of what they encompass is subjective as well. I think Fortune was trying to point out that the Path's represent modes of consciousness and the Sephiroth represent forces of nature, outside of ourselves, and our idea of nature within.

This is, first of all, a HIGHLY dualistic view of Nature and Consciousness that is really untenable in my mind. Secondly, doesn't the Fool refer to Air? Doesn't Crowley specifically link every astrological sign to a physical phenomenon in 777 (e.g. Pisces with stagnant pool, Sagittarius the rainbow, Taurus the plains, etc.?) And don't the Sephiroth refer explicitly to inner states as when we refer to attaining to 5=6/Tiphareth?



Quote

:) I don't want people to picture the same internal visualizations, but I would like everyone to attempt to perform the same acts of Ritual together.

What? Is ritual empty behaviors and acts without internal-anything? There is no willpower being activated, imagination being used, or visualizations being held? Dare I say this would be a ritual that is stillborn on conception?

Quote

c) This is a good point and one I didn't address. I do not want anyone to be obscure in their records, I would like all of you to point out the sensations you felt, anything you heard or "seen", any physical phenomena and emotional changes. No one should be sending in records that say "I witnessed the symbol for love being held by an angel", instead you should simply type out what you seen, the way the symbol looked and the way that the entity holding it looked, not what you feel these things represent.

Indeed - I think it is actually necessary to train people to report their experiences in such a phenomenologically plain way (without the theoretical extrapolations.... for exapmle, its way different to report seeing a golden square with adonai written in Hebrew around the edges than to report 'being awash in the glory of our four-fold Lord')

Quote

d) Yes, people do embellish their results, especially on the internet. I am hoping to weed these people out (if there are any) by reading through their results and then questioning them on certain aspects of it. Hopefully by the time we get to later experiments people like this won't be involved.

If you've developed a method of figuring out when people are embellishing their visions and such, let me know as I would love to hear.

Quote

e) I don't know yet. I was probably going to type up a template that everyone could fill out, but I am not sure yet.
Not sure about what? Whether you want people to be uniform in their reporting or not?

Quote

f) This is fine with me, it is actually one of the main reasons I am doing this.
g) Yea, it is pretty open ended but that's fine for now, I am not getting graded on this.

If I gave you a grade right now, it would be a C. A for effort, D for carrying this out (nothing has happened in the least yet - the projects not even been elaborated), and a B for enthusiasm. But who cares about grades? I care about accuracy and scientific rigor and people aren't scientists just to get good grades, my boy.

somewhere forgotten said:


arguing about whether the experiment is viable or not scientific is nonsense. who cares. this is a magic forum not a physics forum.

You sir, are missing the entire point of this entire thread. I would even go so far as to say your comment is ignorant in the face of all the posts on this thread, let alone its entire import which is to conduct a relatively scientific investigation into a group working. When you wrap your head aroudn the basic idea of what this entire thread is for, maybe you can talk about nonsense. Either way, your strict dualistic conception of physics and magic being mutually exclusive is especially odious to me and I find your dismissive attitude also quite strange. I'm sorry all my talk about "hypotheses" and "not embellishing results" and "comparing things" is all too complicated for you but us adults like things that are based on scientific rigor, not on wild fantasies where we pretend we are doing things.

Again, you're missing the entire point. The fact that you are able to read to page 5 of this thread and still be utterly clueless regarding what it is about is a very impressive feat and a testament to the ability of blinders of attention.

Quote

The only thing that I am worried about was your(Rif Raf) statement that people may not be involved in furter experiments if their replies are deemed false. I do understand what you mean of course it is better if people do not embelish. Its just hard to see you can know when we are of varying degrees and styles.

Why would you worry abotu that? if you are remotely truthful nothing would happen. I am guessing this ritual will never occur, though, let alone ones in the future. I would be extremely surprised if RifRaf actually got this together, let alone in the one week timeline you set out above.

93 93/93
"Know that to be indestructible which pervades all this; the destruction of that inexhaustible principle none can bring about. These bodies appertaining to the embodied self which is eternal, indestructible, and indefinable, are said to be perishable; therefore do engage in battle..."

"The Soul, being a brilliant Fire, by the power of the Father remaineth immortal, and is Mistress of Life, and filleth up the many recesses of the bosom of the World."

#51 Frater F.C.

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 150 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 04:50 PM

0 and 2 said:

Why would you worry abotu that? if you are remotely truthful nothing would happen. I am guessing this ritual will never occur, though, let alone ones in the future. I would be extremely surprised if RifRaf actually got this together, let alone in the one week timeline you set out above.

93 93/93

I was actually going to request RifRaf to bump this off to next weekend. I completely forgot that my Ph.D. Prelim exam is this weekend when I said this week was ok. I'm still in otherwise.

#52 somewhere forgotten

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 421 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:19 PM

0 and 2. It seems clear that you do not understand the worth of this thread. I was saying if you do not think it is scientific then it does not matter because it is a magic forum. I 'do' think that comparing the results of peoples work is scientific, it is the variatiions that make it interesting. Your reckless attitude towards any approach but that of a labratory experiment in which no magical experiment could be analysed anyway leaves me constantly astounded and I further wonder why you bothered to post on this thread in the first place. If you dont want to be involved then dont.
As to your question why people being cut out if they embleshed bthered me, i answered it when I wrote it if you bothered to read anything properly. I stated that as people will likely do things at different times and different ways it was impossible to tell if they were embeleshing or doing things different and thereby getting unusual results. sigh.
02 04 | 03 05
06 08 | 07 09
12 14 | 11 13

#53 080

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 433 posts

Posted 04 November 2009 - 09:58 AM

O and 2 said:

Quote

a) ..That essentially destroys the entire experiment. To test someone before and after is not to test intra-subjective results. Further, you have no 'control' or baseline for any of this. So what if he is 'different' later? It could be that he ate a lot of pizza and that did the trick, or perhaps at the beginning he was on the diet. And how are we measuring these 'effects' we are 'demonstrating'?
...in my earlier post i suggested that in order to make some conclusions about the effect of simultaneous rituals it would be a good idea to get baseline data from each participant. i suggested assigning a number of ritual times to participants (one of which would be the scheduled similtaneous ritual) without telling them which was the simultaneous ritual. it is then possible to compare the reports given by each participant across the solo and the simulataneous ritual.

Quote

:) --Then you are not talking about the same experiment everyone on this thread is talking about, and see above.
.. to some extent... my points were on investigating the effect of simultaneous working rather than the more general consideration of individuals different working techniques. the former suggest a possible scientific methodoloy, the later would probably benefit from a more textural type of analysis (literature and anthropology have their own established techniques)

Quote

c) --Perhaps, but this is a problem nonetheless and giving people surveys rather introduces more variables than eliminates them...
--never the less surveys are often the only way to gain any indication of intrapsychic activity and they do provide a more controlled set of information than simple reports... a properly devised instrument can provide realiable measurements (even if in the end we can not be certain of exactly what we are measuring)

Quote

d) --No, it can't. Please inform me how to control human nature of embellishing facts about yourself. After majoring in Psychology at a university, and personally doing survey studies among others, I am not aware of such 'tricks.'
-- no instrument is perfect but many instruments do have ways of revealing liars or flattening/averaging responses.

Quote

e) -- Why would this matter to you if you think people should only be compared with themselves? Either way, a form or something standard is needed but I am guessing this will never be produced.
-- it could however be done and it would allow for other forms of analysis.

f)

Quote

What would that show but an empty number? Say you got 100 occultists to all do this perfectly - chances are you will not get 10 - and 60 reported visions that corresponded with traditional associations and 40 did not. So what? Those 60 perhaps are more focused on Qabalah in their studies and read more - perhaps the 40 are more creative or less bound by tradition? There are 100 ways to interpret that data and most experiments - in fact all of them I know of - eliminate all this nonsense wehre we are asking a milion questions at once: you need to ask one question, have one hypothesis, and focus on that. Think about how you would account for 2 variables, let alone the 30 or so that are appearing...
-- if the hypothesis is "participants will report more vivid imagery during a ritual performed simultaneously with other participants" you might be able to compare the level of imagery reported during the simultaneous ritual verses the ritual performed solo (again, participants do not know exactly which ritual they are performing is the simultaneous ritual).

Quote

g) --Then let it be not tacit and be openly stated...
the subjects of an experiment usually don't know the precise hypothesis... the important thing is for the experiementer has a clear, investigatable hypothesis.

Quote

I am writing all of this because I appreciate RifRaf's attempt and idea. I think this is the kind of thinking needed to get people to become Scientific illuminists instead of mere math-mongering occultists. I want this to work and want people to be aware of how difficult a basic scientific experiment is, and I dont want people to think they've accomplish some scientific feat when they've really just had a story time about their experineces.
--in this instance our motives are not so disimilar. scientific knowledge is a particular type of knowledge and it is gained through particular methods. there are of course other forms of knowledge which are valuable. if somebody wants to make a scientific claim they should provide scientific evidence. scientific evidence is not easy to produce (properly attempting the scientific method will demonstrate this more effectively than any amount of argument)... and the majority of claims and knowledge that fill our everyday life, regardless of how useful or "true" they might be, are not scientific. Crowley described magic as a science, as an art and as a sport. Science is largely valued for its technical utility. Art is largely valued for its aesthetic meaning. Sport is largely valued for its pleasure, There is more to RifRafs work here than science. nobody seems to think they will be discovering gravity... there are opportunities to be a bit more scientific but, yes, it is all a bit like trying to make a silk purse.. but for all that we may learn a bit about knowledge itself.
Tacere.

#54 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 04 November 2009 - 09:21 PM

Frater F.C. said:

I was actually going to request RifRaf to bump this off to next weekend. I completely forgot that my Ph.D. Prelim exam is this weekend when I said this week was ok. I'm still in otherwise.

Whenever is fine with me, as long as everyone else agrees. This weekend or next I am open.

0 and 2 There isn't really much more to get "together" this is kind of a dry run and we already have it set-up.

If anyone hasn't PM'd me yet and is out of the loop they can PM me now.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#55 Frater F.C.

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 150 posts

Posted 11 November 2009 - 03:04 PM

Is this still on? I'd be interested in doing it. I gotta be out of town, so no full temple, furniture and all that stuff... but I still want to give this a whirl :D.

I can do the entire outline above with minimal implements.

#56 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:17 AM

Yes, let's start this weekend. What time is everyone on? I'm MTN. Also, all we have is 3 of us, I haven't had anyone else PM me. So Frater FC and somewhere forgotten, and me? If anyone else wants to please PM me by Friday evening.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#57 somewhere forgotten

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 421 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 04:12 AM

time? Im on GMT. I dont even know what MTM is lol. its 4:12am when i posted this
02 04 | 03 05
06 08 | 07 09
12 14 | 11 13

#58 Frater F.C.

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 150 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 04:31 AM

I'm on EST. While I usually like to use planetary hours (simply as another tool), I really am constrained to doing this late at night (around 11 am to 12 PM EST). I'm visiting my parents this weekend, from whom I tend to keep these practices secret. Thus, I'd rather wait til after they go to bed. Are we doing this at the same time? or just on the same day?

Cheers!

F.C.

#59 Frater F.C.

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 150 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 02:15 PM

Well, I attempted the pathworking. Nothing too astounding, though I did it outside my usual temple space without a lot of the implements I usually use, so that might have had some sorta effect.

Anyways, let me know how you want us to report this!

#60 benji

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • 60 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 10:31 PM

Your idea is really brillant.
I would have joined , but I dont have any time, plus I live in Paris ( fuckn jetla ^^ ) even if it would've been possible.

You can connect yourselves with a stone and an herb ;)
I've alredy tried that with a friend.

Let say you take some Laurel ( for example) that you energize ( a charm on it or something etc ) then you infuse it in order to drink it before your practice.
You will be able to connect you in an easier way, you can add to this a quartz which can amplify the herb energy.

:)

Tell us more about what it'll stem ( from above ^^ and from you :D )

See ya





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users