A Stupid Thing Crowley Said

Posted in Uncategorized on January 11, 2016 by Patrick

One of the stupidest things Crowley ever wrote wasn’t all that stupid, but it annoys me to no end.  Crowley was far from stupid; I admire his work tremendously. But there are occasional bits of stupidity: flashes of racism, idiotic attitudes toward women and Jews, and hints that he’s not all that serious about any of it.  That all gets on my nerves, and is certainly stupid. But the bit I’m thinking about is a kind of stupidity that just gets on my nerves, rather than offends my sense of justice. He once wrote:

“Then, when thou hast Him, cease to speculate —
Who hath the How is careless of the Why.”

He wrote this in his Bagh-i-Muattar, which he claimed to translate from a rare Persian manuscript.  Of course he wrote it himself.  This quotation shows up in a lot of magical work as an excuse for anti-intellectualism, a vice that Crowley never indulged in.  Most people who quote it never read the B-i-M.  If they had, they’d know it was a satire with mystical elements.  In fact, he includes a footnote to this line:

The natural (though hardly altogether
just) contempt of the practical expert
for the arm-chair critic.

It’s easy to excuse intellectual laziness.  After all, the rutabaga grows without knowing it’s a rutabaga.  “My magic works: why should I think more about it than that?”  Because you’re a human being and not a root vegetable, goddamn it, that’s why.

This anti-intellectual contempt is “natural,” as he says.  It’s how we avoid the unpleasant sensation of cognitive dissonance.  He’s also right: it’s not “altogether just.”  Without insight, without theory, there’d be no practice. And to head off the inevitable, kitchen witches and folk magicians have theory; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t know what to put into their gris gris.  If you can’t wrestle some cognitive dissonance into shape and hitch it to your wagon, you better not claim any attainments in the control of your own mind, let alone reality.

If you’d like to quote this phrase at me again, as some have, I ask first that you read the Bagh-i-Muattar.  And if you’re using it as a thought-stopping cliche to avoid having to engage your intellect, ask yourself what Crowley might have thought of that.

Is Magic One Thing?

Posted in Uncategorized on January 8, 2016 by Patrick

Physics works wherever we are.  Go to Haiti and drive a car.  Go to Louisiana and drive a car.  Go to Bangalore and drive a car.  In each case, that car’s motion is governed by the same laws.  It doesn’t matter what kind of car it is, either: electric, gas, or nuclear.  Acceleration is still velocity over time.  Force is still mass times acceleration.  There’s a famous joke about physicists: how many physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?  Well, first assume that all physicists are frictionless spheres . . . In other words, we can abstract behavior, and details don’t matter.  The color of the car or what it runs on is cultural decoration to the physicist.

Is magic the same way?  If a practitioner of Wicca, a Cabalistic magician, a Buddhist sorcerer, and my chaos magician buddy T.B. all do a spell, it’s gonna look different.  But is the magic the same?  In other words, is there just one thing we call magic?

I think it’s helpful to think in terms of culture and onton. By “culture,” I mean those symbols, rituals, practices, and beliefs that get passed on and define membership in a particular group. Wearing pants rather than a toga is culture. Thinking slavery is reprehensible is culture. Eating enchiladas for Christmas is culture. Onton is a term I made up, because there just isn’t an easily available one in English. Onton is what’s actually really real, beyond all difference, and outside of time.

The car’s color, what means it uses to drive it, and so on, that’s all culture. But the onton of a car, what a car is when reduced to absolute eternal theory, is a set of equations describing motion, and all motion is one kind of thing: F = ma, no matter what object has that quality of mass, no matter what color it is and no matter what it’s called.

Another way to understand it is this: I speak English, grew up in the midwest of the United States during the late twentieth century. Someone else may speak French, and maybe grew up in Paris in the early twentieth century. Our cultures are very different. But our onta, what we are, is the same: we’re both humans.

Papa Legba, the Iunges, angels, and so on — all very different things, granted. But they belong to the same class of things, the same sort of things: spiritual entities. Magic, too, in the broadest sense, differs culturally, and that cultural difference matters a lot — I’m not discounting that. But what magic is, ultimate, the sort of activity it is, seems to me to be one thing, one onton. Maybe it’s not: maybe some things are different. Maybe talking to spirits is different from making a talisman in a very fundamental way; they certainly feel very different. But if they are, it seems strange that the same sorts of habit of mind, the same sorts of skills, are useful in both.

What I’m not saying is that culture doesn’t matter or is just decoration. I’m not saying that we should discount people’s experiences (the exact opposite!). I’m not saying that nothing exists but culture (again, the exact opposite!). I think that culture matters a lot and one of the decisions we make when we do magic is how our culture shapes that magic.

We have the advantage of knowing what some of the onta are that govern the behavior of our world. We know the equations of force, thanks to Newton. What we don’t know are the onta that govern magic, and I think it’d be interesting to think about how we might find that out. Because I don’t think science can do it. Which is the subject of a future post.

What Does it Mean to Mean?

Posted in Uncategorized on January 6, 2016 by Patrick

If I say “lugubrious” means “excessively mournful in a ridiculous manner,” I have told you what the word “means.”  But have I really?  Because what it means isn’t that collection of words, but the environments in which one runs into it.  “Mom” means “female parent,” but that’s not what Mom means.

Meaning is an association between two experiences, a link between two qualia.  It cannot be paraphrased or reduced to symbolic logic; it is pragmatic, not semantic.

A quale, as you may recall, is “what it is to be like” something.  It’s not able to be communicated, only experienced directly, and is the foundation of our consciousness.  We don’t have qualia in isolation, but in networks.  Think of the smell of oranges, and pay attention to what other experiences arise in your mind at the same time.  This is the meaning you have attributed to oranges.

You cannot paraphrase meaning, by which I mean you cannot convey the link between two qualia in language or by means of another symbolic system.  You can hint at it, and point to the connection, but not convey it.  It cannot be reduced to semantic logic, by which I mean, meaning of experience is not the same as meaning of words.  It is pragmatic, not semantic: it is connected, in other words, to context, the whole gestalt of experiences, not to individual lexical units.

Notice how different this is from science.  If I experience the results of an experiment, I can definitely convey that to others in symbolic logic.  Meaning in science is semantic and lexical.  Meaning in magic is pragmatic and personal.  Science seeks to share experiences to arrive at truth; magic seeks to link experiences to create new truths.

What’s an Experience?

Posted in Uncategorized on January 4, 2016 by Patrick

I’ve been talking about Chapman’s idea of experience a bit, and how experience selects an indexical world in configuration space.  I gave an example of a spell in my last post and described how one should attend not to the desire but to the physical actions, the experience, of the spell.

But what’s an experience?  Is everything that happens to us an experience in the magical sense?  I don’t think so, and here’s why.

Experience, for one thing, is what we attend to, what impacts our consciousness.  If I’m walking in the woods, a lot of information is coming in through my senses but I’m discarding most of it, even if I’m making an effort to be mindful.  Our minds work that way.  I might see countless birds, and register them as “bird,” but one bald eagle becomes an experience, because they’re less common.  If I were a bird watcher, of course, all those “birds” would also become experiences, just as most people tune out foreign languages when they hear them in public, while I try to listen and identify them and pick out words I might know — because languages matter to me.

Experiences are those things that impact our consciousness because they matter to us.

They are qualia, which my spellchecker amusingly wants to make “quail.” That’s strangely appropriate.  Have you ever been jogging in the woods, maybe near sunset, and suddenly a bunch of birds explode out of the grass and your heart nearly stops?  Do you know what that’s like?  If you do, that’s a quale that you have, and that I share, but if you haven’t you don’t really know from my experience.  I can’t tell you what that’s like, until it happens to you.  The example I always use is avocado.  Before I ever tried one, my mother told me that an avocado tastes like an egg yolk, and it kind of does — but not really.  You can’t explain what an avocado tastes like: it tastes like an avocado, and no amount of description will convey the quale.  Only the guacamole will.  A quale, then, is “what it is like” to experience something.  An an experience is that which creates an ineffable quale.

This makes magic an aesthetic matter.  If magic is about finding an experience that will select a point in configuration space, then we must discover what sorts of experiences matter to us.  That means understanding what aesthetically matters to us.  But that’s not the whole formula, of course: we also have to decide that the experience means something.  And that raises the stickier question, what does it mean to mean?


Power Candle

Posted in Uncategorized on January 1, 2016 by Patrick

Here’s a fraud selling $90 “power candles.”  (post via Boing Boing; they’re not the fraud selling them)

This sort of thing pisses me off, and here’s why:  If you need magic so badly, you don’t need to spend $90 for it.  Here’s how you can make a power candle that will be ten times more powerful than anything you buy, at home.

You need a candle, any kind will do, taper or votive.  A 50 cent tealight works fine.  White works for everything.  Otherwise, pick a color that reminds you of what it is you want to get (green for money, maybe, or pink for love — there are lists, but if you have any sense at all you can just figure it out).

You need some sort of oil.  You can buy particular oils for particular aims, and those can be pricy.  Or you can just use olive oil.  Just use olive oil.

Pour the olive oil in a dish.

Write your name on the candle, up from the base to the wick for a taper or clockwise around the wick for a votive or tealight.  Also write your desire, in just one or two words.  You can do this with a pin or a ballpoint pen that’s run out of ink.  You don’t have to worry about it being legible.  At this point, state your desire out loud, and know that burning this candle will be the same as acquiring your desire.  State your desire in positive terms: “I have enough to pay the rent” not “I want enough to pay the rent.”

Bless the oil by saying a prayer over it.  Make up your own.

Lay the candle on a cleared table (no clutter!) and roll it toward you three times.  Pay attention to the candle itself: the sound it makes the rolling, the sensation of its movement when you send it toward yourself, the feel when you catch it, and so on.  Don’t think about what you want.  Just watch the candle.

Now dip your index finger in the oil.  Starting at the base of the candle for a taper, oil it to the middle.  Then do the same from the wick to the middle.  If you’re using a votive, oil the top lightly clockwise.

Light the candle.  Again, do not think about your desire, not at all.  Ignore it, put it out of your mind.  Pay attention to the sensory impact of lighting the candle.  Watch the flame and clear all thoughts but those of the flame from your mind.  Do this for a few minutes.  Then walk away and let the candle burn down.  If you must leave before the candle burns down, don’t let it burn unattended.  Extinguish it with a pinch or a candle snuffer, not by blowing it out, and relight it when you return.  Again, when you relight it, just pay attention to the candle, not to your desire.

Put your desire out of your mind as far as possible, but act on any opportunities that arise.

That’s it.  That’s all.  That’s a power candle, and it’ll work a damn sight better than some ridiculous $90 piece of crap.  Because the magic isn’t in the candle (or, at least, not entirely — jury’s out on that, and that’s another theory heavy sequence of posts later).  It’s in you, and has been all along.  The feather wasn’t magic!  You were!

How Magic Changes Configuration Indices

Posted in Uncategorized on December 31, 2015 by Patrick

Have you all stopped reading my blog yet?  No?  Really?  On hiatus for a year or so, and then a long string of posts about theory?  Okay.  Well.  You’re in for it.

Have you read this book?  Advanced Magick for Beginners.

Well, why the hell not? Do it. I’ll wait.

Okay, so what Chapman points out is that magic can be reduced down to a fairly simple procedure.  To summarize, and not do it justice:

  1. Select a desire.
  2. Select an experience.
  3. Decide that experience means the same as the desire.
  4. Experience the experience.
  5. Profit!

This seems too simple, and I resisted it the first time I read this book.  I recently read it more closely, and more carefully, and conducted some experiments.

He’s right.

One hundred percent correct, at least about this.

And the thing that gets me is that the experience doesn’t matter.  I’ve been deliberately selecting absolutely nonsensical experiences.  Not sigils.  Not words of power.  No spirits.  Just things like squeezing my finger and carefully arranging cue-tips into geometrical shapes.  And it works.  In fact, it seems to work best if I pick a completely different arbitrary act each time, but I’m still gathering experience there.

There are so many theoretical issues about this, and that’s another long string of posts that’ll drive readers away, until I can finally kill this blog.  So look forward to that.

Notice there’s nothing here about mystical energy, or goetia, or the information model.  It’s just experience.  So why would that work?

Because the index of the actual world among the infinite configuration space of possible worlds is determined by our experiences of that configuration.  Moreover, I suspect that we do not all dwell in the same possible world, or inhabit a single point in configuration space, but exist in a cloud of loosely linked actual worlds.  Tying an experience to a possible world and experiencing that experience drags our index closer to that world.

Note that it’s absolutely impossible, not just theoretically or practically, but logically, for the scientific method to ever confirm magic.  The scientific method only investigates the actual world, the indexical possibility currently selected.  It’s going to see a narratively consistent smooth contour of cause-and-effect, because that’s the result of moving the index in configuration space.

It’s clear to me now that possible worlds exist.  They are arranged in a continuous configuration space as an abstract object.  We call the actual world a world selected by a deictic index (or maybe cluster of indices — we may each have our own).  We move that index through our own mundane efforts, but also through magic.  It is the selection of experience and the process of choice that impels the index.  All other trappings of magic are culture, useful for empowering experience and for aesthetic effect, but none of them are absolutely necessary, which is not to say they’re not valuable, as culture itself is valuable.

That’s my conclusion.  I’d be happy to hear your reasoned arguments or reactions.  If I’ve made an error in my logic, correct me.  If you want to help me come up with some implications and experiments suggested by this way of thinking, I’d love to hear that too.

Index and Deixis

Posted in Uncategorized on December 28, 2015 by Patrick

Let’s go back for a moment to the actual world, and leave aside possible worlds.  When I say (1) below, it is false.

(1) I am president of the United States of America.

But when Barack Obama says it, right now, it’s true.  In a short time, though, when he says (1), it won’t be true.  It’ll be true when someone else says it.  In order to evaluate the truth value of (1) we have to know two things.  We have to know, first, who is saying (1); and we have to know when they’re saying it.

If I say it at any time, it isn’t true.  If Obama says it right now, it is.  If Reagan says it in 1983, it’s true.

We say that the word “I” is a deictic.  It’s a word whose semantic value points (deixis in Greek means “pointing”) to something in the actual (or a possible) world.  Without knowing what it points to, you can’t evaluate its meaning.  Other deictics include “here,” “there,” “now,” “then,” “tomorrow,” “he, she, it”, and so on.

Let’s look at another statement:

(2) I have a new car.

(2) is true just in case the speaker, the person pointed to by “I”, has a new car.  Let’s imagine that I is me, and I don’t have a new car.  It’s false, then.  But let’s recall configuration space from my last post.  How far away are those points in the possible worlds in which I have a new car?  Not very far away, really.  All I have to do is move the indexical world, the “actual” world, to one of those worlds in which (2) is true.  I’m not even changing the world: I’m just moving the index.

How will this look from the outside?  Well, the index in configuration space doesn’t move in jumps and starts, so a new car won’t appear in my driveway.  I’ll probably get a perfectly plausible windfall.  I’ll find a good sale.  I’ll get a high trade-in value.  All quite possible, even coincidental-seeming, things, and I’ll end up in a  possible world in which I have a car.

This is, of course, exactly how we know magic to work: by seeming coincidence.  In fact, if we trace back the chain of cause and effect, we often find the causes preceding our act of doing magic, as if the universe is weaving together a consistent story.  Some have tried to explain this weirdness of magic by calling it “retroactive enchantment.”  But if we think of magic as just moving the index across the configuration space of possible worlds, it makes absolute sense that such a thing would be.  We could not imagine magic working any other way than that, if that’s what it is.

We also know that magic in order to make me president is unlikely to work.  Sometimes people evoke probability, but there’s a problem with that: in classical probability, statistical certainty is merely the measurement of our ignorance.  To say there’s a 10% chance of something is only to say that in the past we have observed that one out of ten times have come to this outcome.  It says nothing about the situation itself, and if we knew more about it, we could get a more accurate number.  It’s a very deterministic view of the world.  If instead of invoking probability, we think in terms of distance in configuration space, we can see that some “improbable” things are actually fairly close to us in configuration space.  For example, there’s about a nearly zero chance that I’ll ever get married to a woman, but it’s only changing a few numbers describing my position in configuration space.  I know that if I did magic to do that, I’d probably succeed (gods forbid).

We can also see how the focus of magic changes when we think of it this way.  Winning the lottery is a magical goal that some people have.  But if you think in terms of configuration space, winning the lottery isn’t really a number that defines an index.  The amount of money you have is.  So doing magic to increase the amount of money you have will move you to a closer point in configuration space than doing magic to win the lottery.

So that raises the question — how do we move our index?  In other words, if magic is the selection of a possible world in configuration space, a world that already exists in the abstract sense, how do we get there?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 146 other followers