Chaos Magic

[Sledge]

It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

Or who think they can talk evidence into existence.

 

[dlorde]

... all that typically occurs are dumb single sentence comments that superficially dismiss the entire issue (obvious example: Sledge…” Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?”). Dumb comments are fine, it’s an open forum after all….but don’t pretend to have an understanding of an issue this big if that’s all you’re capable of.

.
So what would you consider a reasonable or appropriate challenge for a demonstration of chaos magic, if not "Show us" ?

 

[dlorde]

...Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically. Also it is an indisputable fact that there does not as yet exist an understanding of the fundamental reality of the universe… what reality is and how it occurs. So we don’t know who we are (or what variety of question that even is…though it is most certainly a relevant one since we know we cannot answer it), we don’t know what we are, we don’t know where reality comes from and we don’t know what reality is. Nor do we know what knowing is or how it comes to know whether or not it knows anything. For every ‘Science of Logic’ there is a Schopenhauer to tear it down. Lots of very substantial things that we simply do not have answers to.

What is, though, quite indisputable is that we and this entire universe exist and everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose.

Given all that stuff you feel we don't know, what makes you feel it's indisputable that everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose?

In particular, what purpose?

our ignorance knowledge must somehow be a subset of a greater knowledge.

Same error as before. Fixed it for you.

 

[dlorde]

I practiced Chaos Magick for about 5 years back in the 90's. I finally stopped when I realized that the only effect that it, or any other magickal ritual, had was to put me in the midset to either effect change or accept change in my life.

Why did it take five years for you to realise it had no effect except on your mindset? What kind of things were you doing with Chaos Magick?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

It's also weird to look at their syntax choice for the same reason. Hint: an inverted sentence does not a good argument make.

 

[kmortis]

Why did it take five years for you to realise it had no effect except on your mindset? What kind of things were you doing with Chaos Magick?

I'd come to it through Paganism, so I was already in the midset that magick did...something. I credit CM for my atheism. One of the things that Peter Carroll talks about (I can never remember if it's in Liber Null/Psychoanut or The Psychomicon) is keeping a detailed magick journal (ya know, collecting evidence ). When I did that, I found that no matter how strong I felt my gnosis was, it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome. If I tried predictive magick, unless I kept the time frame ridiciously short (e.g. half-day or sooner) I'd be no better than chance. After about five years of that, I decided to drop all those trappings (with the exception of Discordianism, which fits nicely with atheism anyway) and go my own way.

I'm not sorry I spent all that time doing that silliness. It taught me how to examine my own practices to see how silly that can be at times.

 

[dlorde]

...I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist (that’s even more than Justin Bieber…and it’s generally accepted that he exists)…

Hey, I just discovered Santa Claus exists (33,800,000 results on Google)

 

[Hellbound]

A man talking sense to himself, is no less sane than a man talking nonsense, not to himself.

Of which he does both.

So there we have it.

Stark raving sane.

 

[dlorde]

...One of the things that Peter Carroll talks about (I can never remember if it's in Liber Null/Psychoanut or The Psychomicon) is keeping a detailed magick journal (ya know, collecting evidence ). When I did that, I found that no matter how strong I felt my gnosis was, it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome.

Interesting - by following the recommended course, you demonstrated to your satisfaction that it was ineffective... would that everyone was so diligent

.. I decided to drop all those trappings (with the exception of Discordianism, which fits nicely with atheism anyway) and go my own way.

Thanks - I hadn't encountered Discordianism, it sounds intriguing.

I'm not sorry I spent all that time doing that silliness. It taught me how to examine my own practices to see how silly that can be at times.

Yes - I think recognising silly practices is important. I have one or two that seem to help allay anxiety, but I roll my eyes when I do them

 

[Nonpareil]

To put it bluntly Argent…you are simply too lost to argue with. Anyone who can do no better than a single paltry wiki link to support an argument that dismisses what is universally regarded as the cornerstone of human identity is simply missing too many marbles to have the slightest respect for. You haven’t even presented an argument….just one single link. Ping!....and human reality is fundamentally redefined! Lost is a compliment in this case. Very impressive.

So you don't actually have any evidence in favor of free will, then?

Thought not. Keep blustering, though. It's very entertaining.

 

[Robin]

It would, of course, be interesting if in fact I did choose as you described. As it is, I simply neglected to include it. I suppose I simply assumed the rest is obvious. I have no real argument with the position. The point, though, is not whether it is the worst except for all the others, or the worst period, or whatever…the point is simply why? What is the situation, and why does it exist as it does?

The answer to that question was known long before there even was science - since Aristotle.

It is the general problem of knowledge

We have to general methods of logic, deduction and induction.

Deduction can uncover no new knowledge.

Induction can uncover no certain knowledge.

This applies to any known epistemology, not just science

And Given the stature that ‘science’ has achieved…it is certainly damning with faint praise to describe it in such a way. You seem satisfied in accepting the status quo. I simply am not.

If you think you know a way around the problem of knowledge then, hey, knock yourself out.

Personally I think that something that has been an intransigent problem for the best minds of history for thousands of years will probably be an intransigent problem for me.

Science is not only the best we have. It is probably the best we can have.

 

[Robin]

So you don't actually have any evidence in favor of free will, then?

And he won't.

I think the last serious essay on the subject was Broad's "Libertarianism" which at least tried to define libertarian free will - something few have even attempted.

Broad concluded that there could be no such thing.

As for 40,000 hits in Google for something that does not exist. Try googling Santa Claus.

 

[kmortis]

Interesting - by following the recommended course, you demonstrated to your satisfaction that it was ineffective... would that everyone was so diligent

Part of my leaving could also have been a general disillusion toward Paganism and mysticism. Around the same time that I realized how silly it all was, the coven I'd been a part of defacto dissolved, and the discussion group I was part of "disinvited" me for asking difficult questions. I believe the last question posed to me was "If you don't believe, then why are you here?". I couldn't answer, so I left.

Thanks - I hadn't encountered Discordianism, it sounds intriguing.

Any religion that uses the phrase "We are a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists, artists, clowns and similar maniacs..." is the One True Religion™.

Yes - I think recognising silly practices is important. I have one or two that seem to help allay anxiety, but I roll my eyes when I do them

Hey, we all have to get through the day, right?

 

[Mirrorglass]

It's also weird to look at their syntax choice for the same reason. Hint: an inverted sentence does not a good argument make.

But patently obvious it is, to anyone with a shred of rationality or integrity (of course.. it would be foolish to assume these traits of the people with whom I've discussed, but shan't name.. silly me), that it is perfectly and utterly true that a sentence, and the truth value within said sentence, are greater, more pure, and more true, by a quantum order of magnitude, or more... when more exaggerating, more certain, more repetitive phrases.. phrases such as "as is abundantly clear", "as is agreed by every single person worth mentioning" and "which no one but a complete and utter fool could deny"... are used instead of evidence, logic, or arguments... and the more insults there are, the more obviously correct.. the post must be.

But you are, of course, beyond hope.

 

[annnnoid]

And he won't.

I think the last serious essay on the subject was Broad's "Libertarianism" which at least tried to define libertarian free will - something few have even attempted.

Broad concluded that there could be no such thing.

As for 40,000 hits in Google for something that does not exist. Try googling Santa Claus.

...no, of course not Robin. There could not possibly be a single thing that could confirm the existence of free will. I mentioned that essay by Attran before...you really should read it. You people are becoming a parody, you truly are.

It’s almost laughable the extent to which you skeptics will go to deny the existence of human truth.

How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not. It’s got nothing to do with believing in free will or any other abstract philosophical or religious concept. You either make a difference in your life or you don’t.

Free will didn’t become the foundation of human identity because some dude walked down a mountain with ‘free will’ written on a piece of stone…..or because Plato had some big ideas about it. Free will became the foundation of human identity simply because every person with an ounce of insight knows they have the power to influence who they will be.

These are referred to as ‘the verities of life’. They are, for example, the stuff out of which movies are made….which is why we have David Fincher saying: “You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.” An explicit and definitive affirmation of free will.

It may come as a real shock to some of you but just because we do not have the ability to define or quantify something does not mean it does not exist.

So as proof of ‘free will’ we have six or seven billion people who wake up every day and either do, or not, take responsibility for their lives. Deny this and you quite conclusively deny that you have a life.

…what equivalent proof do you have that it doesn’t exist?

 

[Nonpareil]

How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not.

Circular logic.

…what equivalent proof do you have that it doesn’t exist?

Burden of proof fallacy.

Try again.

 

[Resume]

Free will became the foundation of human identity simply because every person with an ounce of insight knows they have the power to influence who they will be.

You can't possibly believe this.

 

[Mirrorglass]

And we even have logical proofs that show free will cannot exist, or even be meaningfully defined, in a physical universe. But I suppose such things are worthless when we have bare assertions.

 

[annnnoid]

And we even have logical proofs that show free will cannot exist, or even be meaningfully defined, in a physical universe. But I suppose such things are worthless when we have bare assertions.

….and of course, because something cannot be meaningfully defined (whatever the hell that means), it must therefore not exist. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you choose how your life proceeds or not? If you choose, for example, to have a child…does that ‘action’ in and of itself constitute a meaningful definition of the vocabulary of reality or not? Newsflash dude….we don’t define the world, it defines us.

But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist? That you no longer get to decide who you’ll be? What a massive load of absolute garbage!

But of course…all I have are bare assertions. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you consider yourself nothing more than a bare assertion?

Do you…or do you not, choose? It's a blindingly simple question. Do you have the ability to answer it?

Edited to correct member's name. Do not change another Member's username in order to insult.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Lord Emsworth]

How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not. It’s got nothing to do with believing in free will or any other abstract philosophical or religious concept. You either make a difference in your life or you don’t.

Free will didn’t become the foundation of human identity because some dude walked down a mountain with ‘free will’ written on a piece of stone…..or because Plato had some big ideas about it. Free will became the foundation of human identity simply because every person with an ounce of insight knows they have the power to influence who they will be.

These are referred to as ‘the verities of life’. They are, for example, the stuff out of which movies are made….which is why we have David Fincher saying: “You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.” An explicit and definitive affirmation of free will.

[...]

So as proof of ‘free will’ we have six or seven billion people who wake up every day and either do, or not, take responsibility for their lives. Deny this and you quite conclusively deny that you have a life.

Covered by compatibilist free will. Which is of course not to be confused with libertarian free will.