| From the Galleries |
1673 pictures in 26 albums
Members' Creations
Unfinished stele
Last Updated Picture:
Frater HPK
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
20,528,254
Yesterday's visits:
24,116
Registrations:
Today: 1
Yesterday: 3
Overall: 5281
Newest Members:
|
|
| Review Submissions |
Attention authors, publishers and retailers! Are you trying to market a newly-released Thelemic product? This site is viewed daily up to 20,000 times by some of the most influential Thelemites. If you'd like to bring your product to their attention, contact us now to arrange for a review to be placed on lashtal.com.
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little...
-- Liber AL I;56
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
BaronSamedhi |
|
Post subject: Is Magick a science?
 Posted: Jun 24, 2008 - 12:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 06, 2006
Posts: 11
Status: Offline
|
|
In many of Aleister Crowley's writings he states that Magick has "the method of science, the aim of religion". He also goes to great length state that he would not ask any one of his students to believe anything he said on face value, that was not empirically provable.
I'd like to ask the forum: IS MAGIC A SCIENCE? and more importantly DOES MAGICKAL RESEARCH REALLY FOLLOW SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
"Science" can be defined as a body of knowledge based on observation of phenomona which can accurately predict outcomes in the natural world. In that case Magick (or at least some aspect thereof) could be considered a science.
Scientific method, however, is a little more specific. It involves Observation > Hypothesis > Prediction > Experimentation > Conclusion. And all that needs to be reproducable BY ANYONE with exactly the same results. So, to state that Magick follows the "method of science" is a pretty big call. I personally don't know of any documented Magickal experiments which have used this method. If anyone out there knows of any I would love to hear of them. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Chrischibnall |
|
|
Post subject: Is Magick a science?
Posted: Jun 24, 2008 - 12:53 PM
|
|
Joined: May 31, 2006
Posts: 21
Status: Offline
|
|
No.
It's an art.
If "alternative therapies" always called themselves "healing arts" they would save themselves a lot of aggravation and accusations of being "pseudoscience" (and art can be healing, can it not?).
It is true that many fields of knowledge that were once regarded as "magic" are now sciences, but let's face it, they are now sciences to the extent that they include scientific rigour and testability, and are not magic any more, so it does not therefore follow that "magic" is science.
It is true that science does not contradict magick, but that is because they occupy different fields. Most members of the public still don't really understand scientific method, and believe in science in the same way as they used to believe in magic. An appeal to science can therefore be used as a "convincer" to allay their scepticism or bolster their belief, but it won't be true to science. This ploy might possibly be less effective now than it was in Crowley's time, with many people being more skeptical (not always in an informed way) about the "benefits" of science. Crowley followed many freethinkers of his time in welcoming science as a great "liberator" from the "superstitions" of the past: it is interesting to compare this attitude with that of Austin Osman Spare, who described science as a "vice" and pure art as a "virtue". He saw the limitations of science and realised that it, too, could lead to enslavement and a fettering of the spirit: in this sense, he was more a man ahead of his time than Crowley. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nehushtan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 24, 2008 - 01:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Posts: 31
Status: Offline
|
|
In my opinion, and contrary to what a lot of the members here will think, the answer is a large resounding NO! (...for the most part, by far). I'd reluctantly affirm that magick and mysticism as encountered in Crowley's brand of occultism is far more scientific than the rituals of exoteric religion, but they're a pseudo-science at best (personally I wouldn't use the word 'science' at all, leaving Crowley's cunning catch-phrases well alone). The problem here is that all results obtained are completely subjective, and left to the individual's interpretation and understanding. There isn't anything remotely objective and empirical about it, as far as classical scientific empiricism is concerned. In my experience, and certainly from looking at Crowley's experiments throughout his diaries, the majority of the results don't ever seem to repeat themselves in exactly the same way twice. This being the case we have to reassess our theories. A theory is only a good theory as long as it holds true, and it has been my experience that magical theories only hold true insofar as they yield varied reults. Results or not, varied reults implies a corrupt theory, and I'm willing to bet that no matter how you modify your magical theories they'll still yield varied and completely subjective results. This isn't scientific at all, and neither does it follow the scientific method. In reality such theories would either be scrapped completely, or modified until they produced objectively verifiable results accurately 100% of the time; something seemingly impossible in the realm of magick and mysticism. ....But then again I may just be a weak magician who's talking out of his ignorant ASh.
The well quoted statement in Liber O is, in my opinion, Crowley's best answer to your question, but when he says certain actions yield certain reults, I wholeheartedly disagree.
"In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things that may or may not exist.
It is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things, certain reults will follow; students are earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them."
Lots of people love Crowley for saying that, but I personally think it's a large pile of shisha. If you're going to use language in such a vulgar way as to juxtapose both magick and mysticism into the world of science, you may as well also pretend that a McDonald's cheesburger is really a steam locomotive; the two are so radically different that to apply the same classifying term to both is just silly.
As I said, lots here will disagree, but as far as I'm concerned unverifiable and unreliably varied results, continuous contradictions, subjectivity and a basis of theological metaphysics does not equate with any form of science or scientific method. It's just a propagated maxim of Crowley's to spread his literary ideas and works, and to attract people to A.'.A.'. too. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Uni_Verse |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 24, 2008 - 03:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Posts: 326
Status: Offline
|
|
I think it is important to point out that it is the 'method of science,' things follow a systematic development. Under 'normal' circumstances you go from Malkuth to Yesod when traveling the Tree, you do not jump from Malkuth to Chesed.
Another point I would like to bring up is that being the object of the experiment each success, failure, attempt etcetera intrinsically changes you and in turn the nature of the experiment.
Every experiment has an objective, else it would not be an experiment. |
_________________
You are missing the point
There is only one verse, sung in infinite ways.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
LuxOrientis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 08:46 AM
|
|
Joined: May 21, 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
|
|
93
It is my personal opinion that the theory of magick is a science, much like any other scientific theory. The practice of magick, however, is an artform.
93s |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
גמל |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 09:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
|
|
93!
Yep I agree mostly with LuxOrientis. The theoretical side of magick is a combination of spiritual experience and science. Doing magick is art and spiritual experience. The theoretical and the practical side combined is artistic science or scientific art, choose what you prefer. And it depends on your definition of art, science, spiritual exercise etc.
93 93/93
גמל
93 |
_________________
"Lovely chap, if dreadfully misinterpreted, and a bit too fond of the old laudanum"
Doctor Who, Timelord and british legend, about Aleister Crowley in the BBC Novel "Heart of Tardis"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nehushtan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 01:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Posts: 31
Status: Offline
|
|
Lux,
Quote: › It is my personal opinion that the theory of magick is a science, much like any other scientific theory. The practice of magick, however, is an artform.
Okay. So, let's take other forms of art: Painting, or music composition, or anything else for that matter. We can say they have a scientific basis for a few reasons. Paints have a chemical composition, and the combination of the various chemicals produces new compounds which absorb or reflect light in such a way as to cause shifts in the frequency of light we can visibly see. By this we see different colours. The paints are then woven in various ways on a canvas, maybe in accordance with rules of perspective, again following very basic rules of science (geometry), to end up with a finalised product, a picture. In music we can take various pitches in combination to create chord structures, and using more than one chord we can produce flowing harmonic patterns with their own tension and release, all following a harmonic theory of music. These harmonies, and the tensions they create, will alter the mood of the listener. Regardless of their seemingly scientific basis, they are both artforms, not sciences. The picture or the harmony produce different results depending on the viewer/listener. The scientific elements which they contain do not have to be recognised at all by the artist in any scholastic manner, and neither do the rules have to be followed. They are not considered as sciences at all by the vast majority of people, and neither is magick for the same reason. It's an artform, and nothing more. The idea that magick is a science because it has a backbone of theory is a moot point too. The theories do not conclude verifiably objective results. In a true science anybody could use the same theory and generate the exact same results 100% of the time. This simply isn't the case with magick. The "theory" is all flawed for this very reason. It doesn't follow the scientific method. In fact, the theory of other artforms like music and painting is good. Those theories do follow the scientific method, and do hold true. The theories of magick do not. You could have 100 different people use a specific ritual, with a specific theory and a specific objective, and you'd end up with 100 different results. Whereas if you told a person to mix two different compounds in a specfic ratio, you'd always get the same results.
GML,
Quote: › the theoretical and the practical side combined is artistic science or scientific art, choose what you prefer. And it depends on your definition of art, science, spiritual exercise etc.
I'd choose neither. It's either one or the other: Science or Art. I'm certain that magick has never been (within recent history, at least), and will never be, considered a science by any academic institute, nor is it considered a science by your every day average Joe. Maybe I'm appealing to authority here, but if magick is a science with a solid scientific basis, how come it isn't being used by NASA to expand our understanding of the universe. How come it isn't being used to produce new technologies? How come it's only niche occult groups who attempt to convince people that their spirituality and belief structure has a scientific basis?
Crowley's "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will," "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion," etc., are all literary devices in my opinion. Where is the science behind it? You said it depends on your own definition of science and art. What do you mean?
Hopefully I'm not coming across as aggressive and/or bigoted, I just don't agree with Crowley/Fortune on this issue at all. I wont try to defend Crowley's opinions here, because I think he was dead wrong. Using the word science in combination with the word magick just seems silly to me. The two are about as far apart as you could get. I suppose it looks good on paper, and can be a tool to justify such a spiritual system's use in the modern world, but I completely fail to see the scietific connection. By it's very nature it is metaphysics!
9T3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
גמל |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 02:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Nehushtan!
This is just my personal view. I am a "scientist", I studied history and sociology and also some interdisciplinary (sorry my english sucks) comparative religion. So the scientific approach towards magick and thelema has always been a part of me. When I study thelemic texts I use the techniques learned at University.
It is true that we will never convince all of the scientists that magick is a kind of science. But I know a lot of academic philosophers who would agree with us  because for them metaphysics can be science as well (never ever tell a philosopher, especially the metaphysic people that they don't do science *g*).
And no, you do not sound agressive. You state your point, I can understand it although I do not share it. And that is one of the main benefits of communication, isn't it?
again sorry for my english
93 93/93
גמל |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nehushtan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 02:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Posts: 31
Status: Offline
|
|
93 GML,
First of all, your English is perfectly understandable. I don't think you should be worried about this, as I've not had any problems reading your posts at all so far. I'm thankful that I don't have to respond in German, otherwise things would become very problematic indeed! 
Secondly, I'm not sure if I can really say anything else on this point. I think I've made my opinions as clear as they can be (without going overboard and writing a thesis). Although, if I was to sum up what I've already said, I'd still end with a conclusion which stated that the scientific method should be used as far as possible when forming magical theories. I don't think magick's a science, but we should approach magick scientifically. For me this at least ends the rigidity of statements like "Magick is the Science...," etc.
What does strike me is that there wasn't any real need for magick to be labelled scientific. It seems, to me at least, that conjoining science and magick was simply a marketing plan by Crowley. A scientific spiritual system has an appealing quality, whereas if it wasn't termed scientific a lot of readers might have instantly been persuaded to put down their copies of the Equinox as superstitious hogwash. It's full of religious ideas after all. The fact that it was labelled scientific, at the dawn of the modern scientific age, would have attracted a lot more people to the system. In this light it's little more than a literary device.
9T3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
LuxOrientis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 03:47 PM
|
|
Joined: May 21, 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › I'm certain that magick has never been (within recent history, at least), and will never be, considered a science by any academic institute, nor is it considered a science by your every day average Joe.
Many of the sciences that we take for granted now were considered heresies and black magic back in the past. So who's to say that the magic that is performed today won't be considered a science someday down the road? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
OKontrair |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 04:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Posts: 200
Status: Offline
|
|
I am with Crowley on this one, at least I think I am.
Magick and science are both wide fields of endeavour. Nothing can be said about either that applies to every part of each.
However assuming that everyone here knows all there is to know about magick I’d like to say something about science.
Science has an unfairly high reputation principally because only its successes are remembered. This puts it on a par with clairvoyance and it is in the very nature of experiment that most will fail. Because of this high reputation the name of science has been stretched to cover everything from the subjects taught in schools to whole industries that are in any way technical. But the subjects taught in schools are really only the relaying of established facts – or anyway that part of those facts deemed digestible by the immature – and the industries are just technologies that rely on those facts.
NASA is not scientific it is technological. And NASA hasn’t been any good since they stopped people smoking at their desks. Look at the old films. Room full of smokers – Moon and back in record time, retrieve the capsule and have a big cigar. Look at them now – blazing trash falling from the sky and missing Mars by a million miles because they mix up imperial and metric.
So who establishes the facts that we all rely on? Scientists? To be fair once in a while they do. More often than not though humanities’ progress hinges on the tinkering of hobbyists in their bedrooms and garages or the occasional doctor who leaves his half eaten cheese sandwich on a damp windowsill over the weekend. The exploitation of discoveries is not attended to by science; that is left to commerce.
Ultimately science is just a style of thought in the same way that philosophy is. If a drunken bum finds a scrappy book on magick in the gutter – and for the sake of argument let us say that the book is total nonsense thrown together for a joke – if he then goes to graveyard at midnight and raves at the sky in order to see what happens then, as far as I’m concerned, that man is a scientist.
More so than an obedient lab assistant systematically tormenting rabbits in the hope that that one of them will eventually blurt out the cure for cancer.
OK |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paolo_sammut |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 04:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 03, 2005
Posts: 33
Location: London
Status: Offline
|
|
I tend to agree with Nehushtan that magic/k is more an art than a science although perhaps it should be approached scientifically in that we need to be as meticulous as AC when we work magick.
This is really for the same reason. Ask 100 people to do a particular ritual and you will have 100 different results. That is also assuming that its possible to measure things like spiritual attainment. Phenomena such as psychokenenis is perhaps slightly different in that we could measure how high an object can be lifted or how much meaningful information is transmitted telepathically, however there seems to be a massive aversion (often even a denial) to phenomena on the part of modern magickians.
I think that there is a problem with with the scientific study of magick which goes further than this however. A scientist is naturally very skeptical and needs to be in order to do their job because positive proofs are very difficult if not impossible to obtain but negative (sceptical) proofs are often easier. For example I could come out with a hypothesis that "all swans are white". Its very easy to disprove - by producing one black swan but this cannot be proven without checking all swans. In many fields this is no bad thing and has allowed us to narrow down models of the natural world and probe the universe to an incredibly tight degree.
This skepticism very much works against magickal results however andit is one of the reasons why non sceptical parapsychologists produce supporting evidence and sceptical parapsychologists tend to produce unsupporting evidence of psychic phenomena. Even as a separate observer to a magickal experiment the scientist will be part of the group mind formed and this will be enough to null any effects.
Even with belief however any information recieved wraps itself around the magickian and shapes itself to their expectations, practice, magical paradigm etc. This is in fact a trait of a lot of the paranormal and I have often found myself investigating entities and ghosts which wrap themselves the observer/participants mind set and expectations. This is true in other areas too - how many models of the magical universe and the afterlife has humanity come up with over time. Each culture can produce genuine magicians, psychics etc and each see a different "truth"
A lot of information produced magickally (whilst of use to the practitioner or to other magickians) is also only really anecdotal and again because it cannot be backed up cannot really be used scientifically.
Having said that, Crowleys sound scientific approach of trying everything systematically and recording everything cannot really be faulted. Perhaps we could say that as far as one considers ones personal universe then magick is scientific however we cannot study that universe in a scientific manner from outside it (ie from here). This really brings us back full circle to some ideas I suggested further up. No matter how tight ones modelling of physics, using it to probe magic really means one is looking in the wrong universe.
In a sense I do wonder whether it matters. Crowley used terms which were part of the language and focus of the day. Speaking for myself as both a magickian and a psychical explorer I dont feel the need to have science back up my own findings and any successful magickal work is worth a ton of reading. Its more important (and more importantly) more fun to work with it and see how deep the rabbit hole is.
Cheers Paolo |
_________________
www.spectrallight.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
hawthornrussell |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 06:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Posts: 373
Status: Offline
|
|
In my own opinion this is one of the few things that Crowley got seriously wrong. If we take the term "method of science" then it puts all sorts of criteria and restrictions on the practice and use of magick. Science follows a fairly rigid set of rules,laws and observations. Magick tends to break and mock those said scientific rules, laws, and observations. Also to pick up on a good point made by Paolo, that magick lacks consistency that scientific criteria seeks. You get one hundred people to do a ritual and you will get one hundred different results. This is why it would be near impossible for the subjective nature of magick to survive the criteria set by Science. Also from my own point of view , if science was able to replicate the effect and phenonema of magick then we would all be in big trouble. It would be a licence for abuse, and something that the magickal current would seek to "reset" to ensure that irresponsible and dangerous people wouldnt be able to use the "scientific magick" ( an example would be arms manufacturers and the military being able to replicate magick in a lab. Imagine the "fun" they would have with that ability...). A scientific magick would imply a manufactured universal application. But from those involved in Praxis, there is an acceptance that occultism and magick isnt universal. Its not supposed to be. Magick (and its practice) doesnt have all the solutions that science claims to have an answer for. And maybe that is a good thing...
When Crowey used the term "method of science", in my eyes he was putting over that there has to be a certain amount of methodical criteria and intelligence involved in using the techniques of magick. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sethur666 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 08:58 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 290
Status: Offline
|
|
93
There is a difference between "the method of science" and science itself. The other half of the saying, "the aim of religion" seems to guarantee that magic is in fact neither. The scientific method can be applied to non-scientific activity. In meditation, for example, if along the path you aim at keeping the mind blank for a set period, carefully noting afterwards how successful you were, comparing your result with previous attempts and then deducing what seems to allow you the greatest success (how sleepy were you, how recently had you eaten) and you are using the scientific method. However, everything is entirely subjective and unrepeatable - no-one else can say for sure whether you kept your mind blank for 3 minutes, thought about a TV programme for 2 seconds, went blank for another minute etc etc. And even another meditator following your method might come up with different results - they might meditate well immediately after eating, you might do better only an hour or two after a meal.
And I would say that science itself is clearly unable to attain the aim of religion, therefore if Crowley is right, Magick is not a science.
93 93/93
Steve W |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
hamsolo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 11:36 AM
|
|
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 17
Location: London
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: And I would say that science itself is clearly unable to attain the aim of religion, therefore if Crowley is right, Magick is not a science.
93 Steve
I don't agree that science is unable to attain the aim of religion. For example, religious states of consciousness can be induced by sending electrical currents into certain parts of the brain. Also by taking certain chemical substances such as LSD. This is scientific, no? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
LittleAlickGrewUp |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 11:41 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Posts: 29
Location: England.
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › And all that needs to be reproducable BY ANYONE with exactly the same results.
This is a slightly poor argument against magic.
For example a dsylexic person might follow mathematic procedure to work out the answer to a question and not be able to get the correct answer. yet mths is a branch of science.
A man may see a weightlifter lift a weight in a certain manner, do exactly the same thing and damage his back, and fail to lift to weight.
"Understanding" (the supposed aim of most magickal practice) is hard to define, but most magical practitioners would say after a few years of magical practice they do have a greater understanding, so in that magic does achieve it's aims. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sethur666 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 12:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 290
Status: Offline
|
|
hamsolo wrote: › religious states of consciousness can be induced by sending electrical currents into certain parts of the brain. Also by taking certain chemical substances such as LSD. This is scientific, no?
No. All science can do in such cases is compare reports of states of consciousness. Science can state that similarities exist in such reports with reports of religious experience. But if, as is often the case, people find it difficult or impossible to describe, adequately, the experience, science is stuck.
And even in these examples, experiencing religious states of consciousness for a while is not the ultimate aim of religion.
Steve W |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paulus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 07:18 PM
|
|
Joined: May 29, 2007
Posts: 16
Status: Offline
|
|
A difficult one here as it depends on one's personal definition of magick.
Magick as a tool for expanding consciousness I would class as a science and could certainly be measured and quantified scientifically (positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging have made considerable in-roads in the neuroscience of meditation and yoga).
Magick as a subjective manipulator of chance (talismans etc) I would class as more of an art.
Regards
Paul |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Flagsofscarlet |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 28, 2008 - 02:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 21
Status: Offline
|
|
| It's the METHOD of science, not wether Magick IS a science, just as it's the AIM of religion, not Thelema as a religion. Crowley used these terms so students would question themselves, and think about their results, rather than blindly believe, (the death of knowledge). So a student could be scientific in their approach to the practical side of Magick, but it is also an Art, in the sense that it depends on the talent of the practitioner. Regards. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Paulus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 28, 2008 - 10:37 PM
|
|
Joined: May 29, 2007
Posts: 16
Status: Offline
|
|
| But the original question that was asked when this thread started was " IS MAGIC A SCIENCE? and more importantly DOES MAGICKAL RESEARCH REALLY FOLLOW SCIENTIFIC METHOD? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
gurugeorge |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Is Magick a science?
Posted: Jun 29, 2008 - 12:08 AM
|
|
|
| | | |
|
in 21° 
: 
in 11° 
: Anno IVxvi 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
