Belief of Magic, Magik, Majic, Majik?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe there are simply some things that can't be explained by science. For example, I've heard that terminally ill people have gotten better after friends and family prayed for them. This could be magic in the form of collective will power, or even divine intervention.

I think youd be surprised just how close that phenonema is to being explained scientifically. You just have to leave the world of classical science, and look into quantum mechanics etc where the divide between mysticism/spirituality and scientific theory is getting increasingly narrower.

The people tend to do better if they know they are being prayed for our rooted for, because they feel valued and fight harder to survive...

Well, it's a good thing for those who seriously hold these beliefs that I hold a squeaky wheel to be a sign of good character, or I would have to ridicule them.

Ever seen this: http://theintentionexperiment.com/index.php

I have seen the book and it does give compelling evidence that changing things by intention is possible, like lots of people praying or whatever you might call it for a sick person to be healed, how it all works, I have no idea.

I'm always torn between the idea that the things that I've experienced are somehow scientifically explained (and almost certainly involving my own insanity) and that they are somehow real. In the end though, it really doesn't make a bit of difference, as I wouldn't want to lose them, and disbelieving too hard might drive them away in either case. If I just have some sort of sensitivity to people who are about to get hurt, and get VERY angry with them before hand (often with cause mind you), well, whatever.

Don't think that SOME sort of focus is not essential. It may be for some people, but I find that it is necessary to have a way of directing my thoughts. Interestingly, when I've used rituals (other than simple cleansing or dedication), the results have almost always involved a serious backlash for me. I'm not quite sure why this is. It may just be the level of power that I'm tapping into. When I lash out, there is no ritual (and usually no intention), but the results can be drastic (up to death I believe), and no real backlash - other than the fact that I've only done this to loved ones.

You should believe that what you subjectively experience is what you subjectively experience. You needn't answer the question as to whether it is linked to external reality unless its answer must affect a decision made in regard to it. Don't mix one category of experience with another unless doing so might render some use, satisfaction, virtuosity, or entertainment. Purely subjective experience is the womb of creativity, and it makes you interesting.

I wouldn't want to lose mine, either.

I'm on the fence. But I'd hate to think of a world with no mysteries left for us to wonder about.

Yes. A world in which we all shunned imaginative speculation for cold, uncaring instruments would truly be a hell, simply from being painfully lackluster. It would be a world without art.

Not neccessarily, people just have to be willing to embrace the truth. Art could still thrive, and could still talk. it'd just have to evolve into other forms, for entertainment, things like animation. Cartoons give us a chance to escape to a make-believe world within our own minds. Music is another great example.

My point here is, fun is what you make it. Here at present, many people, especially in the western world, act as if everything is just a big primative game to "screw them before they screw us". That stuff would have to go.

What you are referring to as "truth" is merely an interrelated set of observations which have a strong enough consistency and logical coherency to be regarded as the context in which our actions are effective.

I believe it is possible to manipulate energy, but that's not necessarily magic. I believe in what you would call ki energy. My brother tried using it once. He made his arm really strong and asked me to try to push it down and I couldn't. I don't think anything major can be done with ki, but it's pretty interesting.

I'm a pretty big occult nerd, but I don't actually practice magic, nor do I believe in it. I do think it's interesting stuff though, and I definitely think there are good authors and bad authors. Here are my three pet peeves. Well, I wouldn't exactly call them that, because they're actually quite helpful in telling me when I should throw a book away.

1. "Magick." If a writer uses the word "magick" instead of "magic," it's almost certainly new-age garbage. This goes double if it has "magick" in the title. And yes, I include Aleister Crowley with that statement. Crowley was a dunce.

2. "Magic can do this, but it can't do that." No, stop, BS. If you don't think the possibilities are boundless, why even call it magic? If you're not convinced of your power, how do you expect the reader to be?

3. This is the easiest one to check for, really. Look at the spine of the book. It's as simple as that. See a crescent moon and the name "Llewelyn"? Yeah, you might wanna skip that one. If it's a Llewelyn publication, chances are it's riddled with 1) and 2).

I like to think of it as "There is nothing magic can't do. I simply am not powerful enough to do it... or I don't know how"