Jump to content


- - - - -

When Did The Meaning Of Microcosm Become Weird?


34 replies to this topic

#21 Atridr

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 256 posts

Posted 18 October 2017 - 11:45 PM

View PostSabahSnoblod, on 21 September 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Exactly! And it's already been proven that it's not actually the way the world works. Atoms don't behave in the same way black holes do, no matter how similar the concepts behind their behavior. They're different so they behave differently. The universe might have constants but it doesn't change the fact different states of matter behave differently in different realms (subatomic vs molecular and so on). Gravity does work but it doesn't apply to everything in the same way. At best such comparisons to "above" and "below" are theoretical and unproven. At worse, misinformed.

While I agree that I too don't like axioms like "as above, so below" precisely because of their ambiquity, it's IMHO pointless to try to prove a point of magic by a fact of science. There is a world of existence; which is governed by laws investigated in various sciences; and there's a world of magick, governed by who knows what unearthly rules.

#22 wren

    Venerable Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 18 October 2017 - 11:53 PM

View PostAtridr, on 18 October 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:



While I agree that I too don't like axioms like "as above, so below" precisely because of their ambiquity, it's IMHO pointless to try to prove a point of magic by a fact of science. There is a world of existence; which is governed by laws investigated in various sciences; and there's a world of magick, governed by who knows what unearthly rules.

It's magic trying to co-opt the jargon of science that raises my hackles.

#23 Atridr

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 256 posts

Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:43 PM

View Postwren, on 18 October 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

It's magic trying to co-opt the jargon of science that raises my hackles.

In my opinion it's ultimately just confusing. While it's possible to illustrate a point in magick by comparing it to for example physics or how computers work, this often leads to misunderstanding that magick would in effect work like computer or by the same logic as physical laws. Truth seems to be that it doesn't, and this should be kept in mind when using these kinds of metaphors.

#24 Spida

    Messenger

  • Members
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:28 PM

What's helpful is if you can correlate a Magickal or Mystical concept with an established Scientific Theory. The resulting Eclectic/Syncretic Paradigm is stronger than either one separately, as it is fortified by deriving from multiple sources.

#25 Atridr

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 256 posts

Posted 19 October 2017 - 11:04 PM

View PostSpida, on 19 October 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

What's helpful is if you can correlate a Magickal or Mystical concept with an established Scientific Theory. The resulting Eclectic/Syncretic Paradigm is stronger than either one separately, as it is fortified by deriving from multiple sources.

No, it just leads to confusion, as even though we may see correlation, it doesn't imply causation. In other words, there is a world X which is studied by science and world Y which is studied by magick; together they form the experience of reality, for those who can experience these both, but their workings seem to be completely separate from each other, much in the same way as Descartes envisioned the difference between mind and body.

#26 Spida

    Messenger

  • Members
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 20 October 2017 - 02:01 AM

View PostAtridr, on 19 October 2017 - 11:04 PM, said:

No, it just leads to confusion, as even though we may see correlation, it doesn't imply causation. In other words, there is a world X which is studied by science and world Y which is studied by magick; together they form the experience of reality, for those who can experience these both, but their workings seem to be completely separate from each other, much in the same way as Descartes envisioned the difference between mind and body.

I am not confused. You are confused about whether or not two different paradigms are compatible in any regard. Apparently you are also confused about whether or not other people are confused. I can assure you I am not, however, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

#27 violetstar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 890 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 20 October 2017 - 03:35 PM

So,Atridr is confused.I am confused.But you are not of course.

Fear Her Whom The Winds Fear

Posted Image My Blog : http://violetstarmagic.weebly.com


#28 Spida

    Messenger

  • Members
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 20 October 2017 - 05:20 PM

View Postvioletstar, on 20 October 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

So,Atridr is confused.I am confused.But you are not of course.

Posted Image

#29 violetstar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 890 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 24 October 2017 - 04:24 PM

Posted Image

Fear Her Whom The Winds Fear

Posted Image My Blog : http://violetstarmagic.weebly.com


#30 Spida

    Messenger

  • Members
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 24 October 2017 - 06:44 PM

@Violet lol nice!

#31 voidgazing

    Moderator

  • Owner
  • 4,147 posts

Posted 25 October 2017 - 12:38 AM

Quote

The resulting Eclectic/Syncretic Paradigm is stronger than either one separately, as it is fortified by deriving from multiple sources.

Example? I'm picturing two completely different theoretical frameworks mashed together, an apple colliding with an orange and making a mess.

I am confused!

My take on it is that magic deals with a layer of reality that influences the one science deals with, but that follows a set of rules that contains but exceeds the layer science does. Almost a meta-physics if you will. To use an analogy specifically designed to annoy Atridr, science examines the part of reality that is the computer and the programs, and magic deals with the wider reality that includes the computer and the users- which are incomprehensible from within the computer.
This is a postcard sent from the dining room of the HMS Russel's Teapot. Wish you were here- the band is spot on tonight, and we're having "all the way down" turtle soup!

#32 Spida

    Messenger

  • Members
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 25 October 2017 - 07:29 PM

View Postvoidgazing, on 25 October 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

Example? I'm picturing two completely different theoretical frameworks mashed together, an apple colliding with an orange and making a mess.

I am confused!

My take on it is that magic deals with a layer of reality that influences the one science deals with, but that follows a set of rules that contains but exceeds the layer science does. Almost a meta-physics if you will. To use an analogy specifically designed to annoy Atridr, science examines the part of reality that is the computer and the programs, and magic deals with the wider reality that includes the computer and the users- which are incomprehensible from within the computer.

It is true, this problem runs parallel to that of the Unified Field Theory, and trying to reconcile the General Theory Of Relativity with the laws of Quantum Mechanics to complete a Theory on Quantum Gravity.

So the 'Apple' would be the Quantum World, and the 'Orange' would be the large-scale Physical World, and the workings of Magic would be more applicable to the 'World of the Apple'. Two seperate realities layed together that follow different rules; unknown rules that unify the two, the world of the Apple and the Orange that is.

Having said that, I do not have a solution to this problem, however, I accept that this is the way things are at present, and I do not feel confused about it.

Finally, back when I started learning about Qabalah one of my first revelations did offer a shred of agreement between the world of Magic(or at least Mysticism), and that of Science(Cosmology). It seemed paramount, and it was relevant to the beginning of everything, i.e. the Big Bang(beginning of Universe), and the Singularity corresponding to Kether; The Primordial Point(beginning of TOL). I was quite pleased with this and have elaborated on it extensively since.

Of course this may fail to satisfy various criteria among skeptics, but I can say I don't feel confused.

Edited by Spida, 26 October 2017 - 04:15 PM.


#33 violetstar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 890 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 26 October 2017 - 11:10 AM

The academic view.This contains virtually the complete history of the concept:

http://www.academia...._Part_I_4th_Rev

Fear Her Whom The Winds Fear

Posted Image My Blog : http://violetstarmagic.weebly.com


#34 Spida

    Messenger

  • Members
  • 887 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 26 October 2017 - 04:22 PM

View Postvioletstar, on 26 October 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

The academic view.This contains virtually the complete history of the concept:

http://www.academia...._Part_I_4th_Rev

My view is academic as well, although it's a specialized summary, as opposed to a complete history.

Edited by Spida, 26 October 2017 - 04:54 PM.


#35 violetstar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 890 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 26 October 2017 - 04:37 PM

View PostSpida, on 26 October 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

My view is academic as well, although it's a specialized summary, as opposed to a complete history.
Yes,thats mainly the origins not the philosophy or contemplation of the concepts.

Edited by violetstar, 26 October 2017 - 05:18 PM.

Fear Her Whom The Winds Fear

Posted Image My Blog : http://violetstarmagic.weebly.com






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users