Science and Magick

The Philosopher wrote:

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. wrote:

>
>
> The Philosopher wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would say, that the core of my thesis is the proposition that in
> > fact, all observable phenomena are the result of metaphysical
> > assumptions.
>
>
> Hmmmmm ...wouldn't any "proposition" be merely a thought? even if of
> matters "metaphysical" a speculation about first principles is just a
> speculation with no demonstrable proof of a first principle or cause.
> Apparently, something was going on before the big bang


really?

News to me. Time starts at the big bang. No 'before' existed. Least
that's the way I understand it.


Yes i have tried to address that idea that time in any conventional sence began with the big bang, that there was no before. However that strikes me as a bit like the rejection of the copernican idea of the sun revolving around the earth. It seems inescapably obvious to me that if a beggining is postulated there must have been something before the postulated beggining. No matter how much one defines this previous state as a lack of anything it is still that.



> (how long before may be irrelevant if 'Time' began with the "big bang')
>
> Hunger, the experience of hunger, fear or other such stimuli are then
> "metaphysical assumptions?" Of course your argument works better with
> stones and planets and nebulae and such and while applicable to the
> human condition i think, is, rather more hubristic, species
> chauvinism, than it is representative of some fundamental perceptual
> bias, if i understand your use of the term "metaphysical."
>

I doubt you do.
If you like, the sensation of hunger, rather than a slippery slide down
a multicolored slope of bramble thorns, is the expression of a
metaphsyical choice you don't know you are making ;-)


Pleasant vs. unpleasant seems to be one of the easiest concious choice to make, what are more difficult choices are when one knows the proper choice will result in pain or somekind of suffering. As it so often does.



>
> > But I suspect that's way over your head.
> >
> >
> > Ergo, there in no science
> >
> >> to metaphysics.
>
> As i understand it we can not directly observe the "big bang". I
> understand that some "Scientists" reject the idea of a big bang and/or
> postulate an infinite series of 'big bangs.' We can conceptualize
> "eternal" which would seem to me to have no beginning as well as no end.
>

yeah. Its all in yer mind boyo. Its just a questiuon of drawing usable
maps and telling helpful stories.


Why? to what end? i can accept a totaly random, meaningless, accidental universe, more of an 'Ooops' than a "Fiat Lux." But that just makes me look for loopholes:)



> >>
> >
> > Indeed. That doesn't invalidate the philosophy though.
>
> Which philosophy?
>
metaphysics.


The philosophy of first causes?



> > Science depends
>
> "Science" and the activities the word stands for no more depends on
> metaphysics or what that word might represent than any or everything
> else. The demonstrable influence of "Metaphysics' is largely confined
> to books and obscure letters on the subject.
>
That is a sad fact. Whereas of course, its the adrdessing of the most
fundamental problem humans who like to understand stuff, face.

Yes but which is really fundamental? hunger, fear and pain or abstract speculation on first casuses?



The demonstrable influence of mathematics might be so described as well.


not sure i understand you unless you mean life is quantifiable even if not gualifiable?



> Assuming one agrees with the metaphysics being expressed. Can no -
> thing be a first cause?
>

Why not?
Causality is simply another metaphysical assumption. No way to tell if
its universally valid as a yardstick or not.

> > on metaphysics to exist. Its the metaphysics that says what is real,
>
> Last i checked that was still being debated.
>

So is how many angels fit in the head of a pin.

cant you make up your own mind?


So far it seems to me that all standards of measure be that mathmaticl, euclidian or social are arbitrary, and for convienience only.



> > what is not real, what size is, and quantity. Its the metaphysical
> > assumptions you make that turn incoherent experience into coherent
> > perceptions.


Hmmmmm ...... first causes may have an originating influence on any present percetions i have but it seems to me concsiouness is relatively mundane?

The pixels into the picture. That's long before science
> > starts to analyze the picture...
>
> Pre programed? people learn up, down, right, left which is all you
> seem to be talking about unless your going to include in the pixelation
> of consciousness the deliberate indoctrination of the young into the
> social customs of its environment.
>

All? A baby knows NOTHING.
Your sure of that?

it cant even perceive properly. Its aware,
for sure, but having a fully functional awareness of the elements that
make up the adult world? no. Its *all* learnt.

> As the more draconian and Apollonian social controls have broken down
> in some parts of the world
> so people have the freedom to speculate about previously taboo subjects.
>

I'd say actually, in this country, they have a lot less.

Perhaps the number of people that want to are less, most people find the open ended unresolvable intellectual speculation bores a lot of people.

There is a new
orthodoxy in science, in matters of morality, and the rest. Only
behaviour is liberalised. It seems you can indeed get away with
anything, except expressing ideas freely. That, it seems is almost a
capital crime.


I can read your words but again, i think you tabloidize social taboos.



> It still fascinates some of us, even as we acknowledge its ultimately
> futile nature. Talking or writing about life is not experiencing life.
> It is writing and talking about the experience of life. And
> metaphysical speculation on first causes has occupied both metaphysics
> and science.
>

Who is speculating of first causes? not me, not in the sense you mean..

I merely show a pattern and a hierarchy. I don't admit to causality, or
time, so 'first cause' has no meaning.


Well arent you special:)


> Whether science seems to be approaching some previously stated
> metaphysical platitude remains to be seen.
>
youve lost me there guvnor.


There are metaphysical statements about the fundamental nature of the universe that have been experessed by ancient philosophers that some people believe are expressive of the direction modern science.



> Both are honestly forced to admit their limitations. Though you really
> have to drag the metaphysics out or the room, kicking and screaming,
> when you set down to calculate an orbital decay:)
>
Before you start your calculation, you have already decided the
metaphysics you will use. If it works, use it. The answer is implicit
in the view that results from the metaphysics.


Yes thats the kind of thing i meant above when i suggested that all measurement systems, all mapping systems are arbitrary.



> What will science find, if any thing, an original nothing? some small
> part of the big bang or what ever that may have in any way initiated
> the big bang at the core of every atom?
>

Ultimately if pursued long enough, it will find the metaphysical
assumptions on which it is based, that's all. Big deal.


It will find the 'no - thing' *chuckle*



The answer is the world you always thought it was to be sure. How could
it be anything else?

> The macrocosmic anatomy has a distinctly biological look to it, imo,
> when i see the Hubbell images.
>
*shrug* we are great at pattern recognition. Similar causes we say,
produce similar patterns. We live and die by analogy and metaphor.


> Speculating on the consciousness of matter, even with our self as
> "Exhibit A" in any expansion of the dignity to anything other than
> ourselves is simply not thought about. Especially if extending the
> consciousness of matter to encompass the entire universe as one vast
> living conscious matter. Are we hubristic enough as a species to thing
> that in the entire universe only mankind has risen to the level of self
> aware matter?


Frankly, I couldn't care less. I am only interested in pragmatic applied
science of consciousness.
Then why even use the word "metaphysic."

It is possible to concoct and infinite number
of metaphysics that make the world all matter, all mind, or something in
between, or none of the above. Its an open ended process of increased
sophistication.


It may seem that the choice of metaphysic is arbitrary and meaningless.
Meaningless perhaps..what is meaning? but arbitrary, no. It has to be
functional and effective in the context of its purpose, which is a human
thing.
Yes, well one has to get past the romantcized idealization of the species, it speicies hubris to say nothing of mankinds transcendental spritual pride. Is that the "metaphysics" you are talking about? And God created Man!


vapid speculation is not my intent. I developed what I did for a
specific reason, as the most elegant solution to a problem that
confronted me.

T+A={R}=O+T

Namely how to reconcile classes of experience that did
not fit a rational materialistic worldview. In so doing, it appeared to
me it had far reaching implications that might be of interest to others.
Sadly, it seems it is not of much interest to anybody. The people who
need it can't understand it, and the people who can, don't want to.


Welllll....it does seem to me you are elevating something rather ordinary to a false ideal. Which is not at all unusual given the general tendency of the animale.




You might say that the solution for me was to realise that ordinary
consciousness, is not the general case, it is the exception that proves
the rule.


That there is an exception to every rule? seems a long way to go for very little:)

Ordinary consciousness, (of which science as we know it is the
critical faculty) is a special case of a more generalised spectrum of
experience.

Dont know if i understand you here or if you are expressing yourself well.

I.e. if I have a starting point at all, it is not the
perceived factual reality of rational materialism, it is the experience
of being alive,

Semantic quibble.

in whatever way it is experienced. The baby experiences,
the adult perceives. The development of the entrance fee to the world of
adult perceptions, is long and hard, and only by massive efforts of will
that we don't appreciate till it wears us into old age, can we maintain
the 'normal sane' vision of the world.


Again, if i understand you, i think your putting too much emphasis on what is mostly instinct.

One dont need an intellectual analysis of existance to exist.




Science in a way IS magick,

Nope dont agree. Espicaly etymologicaly.

in the sense that it takes enormous efforts
of will to maintain the necessary worldview in which phsyical reality
CAN be affected by our desires.

No not that either, as i wrote earlier, its almost all instinct.

Namely by building machines, concocting
chemicals, planning solutions and the like.


Specialization.



Now try applying as much effort to maintaining a different view.."Why,
as child I used to believe ten impossible things before breakfast!"
said the White Queen.

One can only assume THAT is the price of admission to Wonderland ;-)

Most magicians know tghe value of and how to play:)

And my apologies for typing this in a machine with no spell checker:(
--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.