Author Topic: Daily Magic Practices II  (Read 97326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 25, 2008, 10:06:30 PM
Reply #75

Kichara

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 982
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Row, Row, Row Your Boat
    • View Profile
    • Check it Out.
do you have a good reason for not believing in any symbol that attempts to represent an unrepresentable concept? Or are you just trying to be unique and keep others thoughts from over influencing you by not believing in any Gods? Or even you have not taken a very wide look at the different Gods with and with out the religions that have been formed around them?

I am going to assume for now the most positive answer that you just have overlooked what huge array of gods there are out there. If you don't agree with aiming for union with Shiva or YHVH or Christ, then find one you are comfortable with and cn relate to, to quote Prophecy, "They are all the same, just with different cloths on."

if you have a different reason then please share on here or in PM, which every you feel more comfortable with.
Hey, whats up?

Please vote in my poll:
http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php?topic=12212.0

July 25, 2008, 11:09:42 PM
Reply #76

Grimmjow

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 162
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Truth Trekker
    • View Profile
Well, I guess you could say that I haven't looked at the wide array of possible deities out there, but I thought most of them were just stories to explain existence back when science could not...

July 25, 2008, 11:17:53 PM
Reply #77

Hech

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Regular Member

  • 1153
  • Karma:
    15
    • View Profile
I think it was, "It's just God wearing different clothes." :P

July 26, 2008, 02:40:23 PM
Reply #78

Rawiri

  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Wandering Nomad

  • 928
  • Karma:
    41
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Teacher
    • View Profile
Grimmjow: Then can you believe in the ideas of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience and eternal? At least theoretically the ideas of such? If so then you can focus on those ideas.

July 26, 2008, 03:42:11 PM
Reply #79

TheAleph

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 116
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    א
    • View Profile
Quote
Well, I guess you could say that I haven't looked at the wide array of possible deities out there, but I thought most of them were just stories to explain existence back when science could not...

Can it now?  :wink:
If you want a more "abstract" approach to God, research on Taoism.

Namaste
"Today, a young man on acid, realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, and we are the imagination of ourselves... now here's Tom with the weather." - Bill Hicks

July 26, 2008, 03:49:24 PM
Reply #80

Grimmjow

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 162
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Truth Trekker
    • View Profile
Grimmjow: Then can you believe in the ideas of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience and eternal? At least theoretically the ideas of such? If so then you can focus on those ideas.

Yes. I can. Thanks for the advice.

And to TheAleph:

Science cannot fully explain existence, but I meant things like weather, stars, natural processes, etc. People thought gods were responsible, but we found that there are various chemical processes and physics to explain all of it, though such deities could be the ones who control such phenomenon, allowing it to exist the way it does. Example:

A rainy day. A scientist will say that it is caused by water evaporating, going into the atmosphere, and condensing until it is heavy enough to fall, AKA the Water Cycle. A believer in deities could say that the deity is responsible. Who is correct? Possibly both of them. True, there is a water cycle, but perhaps there is an underlying force, AKA a deity, or whatever that influences the water cycle happen as it does.


July 28, 2008, 08:48:17 PM
Reply #81

Kichara

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 982
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Row, Row, Row Your Boat
    • View Profile
    • Check it Out.
I think of it as they are both saying the exact same thing.  Science likes to symbolize the process with names of energies and physics, while  religion symbolizes it more as a story with characters instead of some sort of equation. 


If you look at them both as symbols(because I am pretty sure the name "water cycle" wasn't found written in the sky).
Then religion and Science mesh alot more comfortably.
Hey, whats up?

Please vote in my poll:
http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php?topic=12212.0

July 29, 2008, 03:49:05 AM
Reply #82

Watchtower

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Hundred-plus Club

  • 935
  • Karma:
    30
  • Personal Text
    Contemplative Panentheist
    • View Profile
Giving names to things you have observed so you have a way of referring to them isn't quite the same as personification of apparently impersonal and non-sentient processes. 

Grimmjow: Logically speaking, I believe the deity explanation violates occam's razor.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 03:52:09 AM by Watchtower »
"For no matter how holy works may be, they do not make us holy because we do them, but in so far as we within ourselves are as we should be, we make holy all that we do, whether it be eating, or sleeping, or working, or what it may."

-Eckhart von Hochheim

July 29, 2008, 08:38:54 AM
Reply #83

Kichara

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 982
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Row, Row, Row Your Boat
    • View Profile
    • Check it Out.
Quote
Giving names to things you have observed so you have a way of referring to them isn't quite the same as personification of apparently impersonal and non-sentient processes.

How so?
Hey, whats up?

Please vote in my poll:
http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php?topic=12212.0

July 29, 2008, 11:34:25 AM
Reply #84

Grimmjow

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 162
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Truth Trekker
    • View Profile
Giving names to things you have observed so you have a way of referring to them isn't quite the same as personification of apparently impersonal and non-sentient processes. 

Grimmjow: Logically speaking, I believe the deity explanation violates occam's razor.

In a nutshell, Occam's Razor states that we should not use more entities(things, concepts, etc.) than required to explain anything, correct? If it's used as an argument against theism, which it is, isn't it also an argument against magick, psi, etc since those things are all unnecessary to explain the world around us?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 11:55:04 AM by Grimmjow »

July 29, 2008, 12:20:06 PM
Reply #85

Watchtower

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Hundred-plus Club

  • 935
  • Karma:
    30
  • Personal Text
    Contemplative Panentheist
    • View Profile
Quote
How so?

The process of water evaporating, condensing, falling back down, then evaporating again is a cycle that water goes through.  Hence "Water Cycle."  This term adds no new concepts or properties to the observed process, it's purely a linguistic tool for ease and brevity of conversation.  "Deity X controls the rain and the rivers and lakes etc." implies that the process that water goes through is sentient and has a personality.  It's quite a different statement.  Using the water cycle model, we can explain why it rains, where the rain comes from, and why the rain never runs out solely by describing what happens to water in the environment, and we can show all this happening in miniature, artificial water systems.  The deity model would add things like the moods and whims of the deity in question, and there's a necessary belief that goes beyond the observed process.  The Water Cycle model doesn't require you to believe anything, you just have to watch.  How is that the same?  (Note: In this, I am not arguing against the Deity Model, simply against the notion that the two models in question say the same things or are comparable).

Grimmjow:  Depends on what phenomenon you are using magic/psi/etc. models to explain.  If you're using it to explain the water cycle, then yes, it violates occam's razor because we already know how the water cycle works and it doesn't require forces or processes that science isn't currently aware of or can't measure.  However if you're using it to explain things which modern science has yet to satisfactorily explain, such as precognition or remote viewing, there is room for additional entities, because the ones we currently have are insufficient for a satisfactory explanation.  That doesn't mean every metaphysical model out there is equally reasonable, but the door is open for metaphysical hypotheses.
"For no matter how holy works may be, they do not make us holy because we do them, but in so far as we within ourselves are as we should be, we make holy all that we do, whether it be eating, or sleeping, or working, or what it may."

-Eckhart von Hochheim

July 29, 2008, 12:27:34 PM
Reply #86

Grimmjow

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 162
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Truth Trekker
    • View Profile
Couldn't science just say that magick, psi, remote viewing, and all that are not possible and/or not real since they're not needed to describe the universe and how it works?

July 29, 2008, 12:28:48 PM
Reply #87

Kichara

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 982
  • Karma:
    16
  • Personal Text
    Row, Row, Row Your Boat
    • View Profile
    • Check it Out.
The moods and whims of the, lets say WC deity, could be other process related to the water cycle. Like if that deity was more sad than usual it could snow, or if he was particularly happy it could be a warm rain.  Along those lines.  I am not arguing either btw, just testing an idea. Which I thank you for debating and not arguing with me.
Hey, whats up?

Please vote in my poll:
http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php?topic=12212.0

July 29, 2008, 12:55:29 PM
Reply #88

Watchtower

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Hundred-plus Club

  • 935
  • Karma:
    30
  • Personal Text
    Contemplative Panentheist
    • View Profile
Quote
The moods and whims of the, lets say WC deity, could be other process related to the water cycle. Like if that deity was more sad than usual it could snow, or if he was particularly happy it could be a warm rain.  Along those lines.  I am not arguing either btw, just testing an idea. Which I thank you for debating and not arguing with me.

Yes you could say all that, however that's not what modern science says.  :)

Quote
Couldn't science just say that magick, psi, remote viewing, and all that are not possible and/or not real since they're not needed to describe the universe and how it works?

If unexplained phenomenon are never observed to occur, yes (though they can't really say that they're not possible).  If they are observed to occur, then they need to be accounted for in order to describe the universe and how it works. 
"For no matter how holy works may be, they do not make us holy because we do them, but in so far as we within ourselves are as we should be, we make holy all that we do, whether it be eating, or sleeping, or working, or what it may."

-Eckhart von Hochheim

July 29, 2008, 07:09:00 PM
Reply #89

Shinichi

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 640
  • Karma:
    80
  • Personal Text
    The Eternal Student
    • View Profile
    • A Wolfe's Notebook
There are the Natural Principles (or "laws," which Science observes), and then there are the Deities who have authority over them (who Magicians observe and communicate with). Is this not True? Because from what I see, you are debating that "Modern Science" (which looks at things from a mostly Materialistic perspective, and is thus incomplete in my opinion) and "Magic" (which is a far older, Spiritual Science) can or can't be compared. In a debate like this, isn't it important to note that Modern Science is almost completely ignorant of the Spiritual Nature of the Universe, to which Magicians have known for thousands of years?

Also, I have a question of my own regarding Japa (or, more specifically, Vibrations)--can this be done Silently? I have read Veos' Article on the LBRP, and understand the importance of physically vibrating the names--but can the physical vibration be done in more of a whisper, instead of the "loud" vibrations that I have heard from most Magicians? I ask this because I live in a rather crowded (Christian) house, and I don't feel it would be wise to be too loud in my practices. :confused:



~:Shin:~
~:Completed the 2013 Qi Gong Study Group:~

"There is no such thing as Impossible, it's merely a matter of understanding the mechanisms by which the Will can be made manifest into an objective reality." -- The Wise.