Consciousness and Magic

[smcder]

I don't follow you. The person wishing for something rather than working for it is invited to spit in their own hand and to wish in the other to illustrate the ineffectiveness of wishing over doing. These folks were usually from Arkansas mind you.

Easy now there fella . . .

My two favorite authorities on wishing are:

1. WW Jacobs' The Monkey's Paw: THE MONKEY'S PAW (1902) by W.W. Jacobs

2. William S. Burroughs lecture on "wishing machines":
Dangerous Minds | William Burroughs on the Occult

Burroughs was born in St. Louis of Missouri, the "show me" state.

 

[trainedobserver]

Given junk's devastating effect on the gastrointestinal system, I can only imagine what the majority of Mr. Burroughs wishes were for, which oddly enough brings the test back to mind.

 

[smcder]

Given junk's devastating effect on the gastrointestinal system, I can only imagine what the majority of Mr. Burroughs wishes were for, which oddly enough brings the test back to mind.

Pretty much like anyone else's wishes. And actually pure heroin doesn't cause major physical problems:

Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation.

Folks who take the good stuff and take care of themselves can function amazingly well for years and years - and like many notorious celebrities, Burroughs may not have been nearly as deeply involved with the drug scene as the legends would have it (Terrance McKenna quit mushrooms after a horrific trip but continued to brag the rest of his life about taking the "heroic dose") and Burroughs lived to be 83, dying of a hear-attack.

Have a listen to it if you have time, Burroughs is lucid and witty, and sly.

 

[trainedobserver]

The murky area is the physical and our thought - it is not persuasive for some to hear the claim that thought is impacting the physical. (Because of time - the illusion of time). But it is - thought is always creating. Many live in the belief that the world is objective and 'solid'. It is and it isn't. Everything we see is the creation of human thought - even that which seems objective and beyond us.

I hear what you are saying and I agree somewhat. All that is or can be experienced by an individual is the individual's mind itself. However, I think the thought vs. physical is a false dichotomy. "Thoughts" are physical events occurring in the brain. The "material" that the brain is composed of comprises the thoughts within it. A (the real world in which we exist and have our being) does not equal B (the illusionary or perhaps more correctly hallucinatory world experienced by the mind) not because it is of a different substance, but because it is an incomplete and largely inaccurate representational model, but its made of the same "stuff" whatever that actually is outside of our perceptional limitation of it.

 

[trainedobserver]

Pretty much like anyone else's wishes. And actually pure heroin doesn't cause major physical problems:

Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation.

Folks who take the good stuff and take care of themselves can function amazingly well for years and years - and like many notorious celebrities, Burroughs may not have been nearly as deeply involved with the drug scene as the legends would have it (Terrance McKenna quit mushrooms after a horrific trip but continued to brag the rest of his life about taking the "heroic dose") and Burroughs lived to be 83, dying of a hear-attack.

Have a listen to it if you have time, Burroughs is lucid and witty, and sly.

Yes, I'm a fan of Burroughs and he writes somewhere about the "constipation."

 

[smcder]

I guess I could have said that the attempted manipulation of unseen forces thought to control nature and influence human destiny though prayer, ritual, or belief is superstition by definition and often found to be counter-productive in the pursuit of one's goals in contrast to a more pragmatic and rational approach.

A pragmatic and rational approach to the pursuit of one's goals might be a good idea . . . I don't know, because I've never actually met someone who implemented it.

 

[smcder]

Yes, I'm a fan of Burroughs and he writes somewhere about the "constipation."

The Junky's Christmas based on Burrough's story:

it's nice

 

[Burnt State]

Burroughs was formative for me when I had those usual fantasies of being a writer sipping on beer in the campus pubs while readng Bukowski, listening to Tom Waits on the portable CD player. Junkie, and Naked Lunch especially in its travels to Annexia, held me almost as spellbound as reading Djuna Barnes' Nightwood for the first time. These were dark pulsing words pushing me with all their dank pulpy wetness towards a door I could not ever come back through once entered. This was a one way ticket to the underworld and I grabbed it with the greedy fingers of a junkie scratching the floor for anymore that was spilled.

This first quote is quite a fitting panacea for the many questions and wounding debates of this forum:

You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative”
― William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

This one's for the two guys exchanging quips in the balcony:

“What's with the serum?"
I don't know, but it sounds ominous. We better put a telepathic direction finder on Benway. The man's not to be trusted. Might do almost anything...Turn a massacre into a sex orgy..."
Or a joke."
Precisely. Arty type...No principles...”
― William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

trainedobserver & smcder in fine form circa 2014​

 

[smcder]

. . .

This one's for the two guys exchanging quips in the balcony:

trainedobserver & smcder in fine form circa 2014​

Balcony? I never set foot past the peanut gallery . . .

 

[trainedobserver]

A pragmatic and rational approach to the pursuit of one's goals might be a good idea . . . I don't know, because I've never actually met someone who implemented it.

Granted, it's the ideal but a good example would be someone who goes to a medical doctor rather than depending on prayer, a faith healer, or questionable pseudo-scientific procedures.

 

[trainedobserver]

You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative”
― William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

That about sums it up. Great quote.

 

[smcder]

Granted, it's the ideal but a good example would be someone who goes to a medical doctor rather than depending on prayer, a faith healer, or questionable pseudo-scientific procedures.

I was thinking more of how the further into a complex situation you get, the more that strictly conscious, rational thought is moderated. Asimov complained (kvetched actually) about the stereotypical man of science being portrayed as "coldly rational" - his ideal was for a hero that was "warmly rational".

The tie in, and I think I actually posted it on another thread - is to the definition of Magic as the manipulation of consciousness according to will.

in this article by John Michael Greer:

The Archdruid Report: A Preparation for Philosophy

He discusses how, once philosophy had decided what could be known and basically what should be done (very generally) the real problem was how to get people to do it - the problem of how people generally don't seem to able to yoke their carnal and social natures to their rational will . . . and that's where, he argues, magic came in.

 

[boomerang]

Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation. Folks who take the good stuff and take care of themselves can function amazingly well for years and years

One of those artificially dirty little secrets the "establishment" doesn't want the public to know. As if the truth about opioids weren't reason enough for caution.

I'm ill grounded in much of the literature discussed here. But to pick around the edges: I see an inherent contradiction based on human perception of cause and effect. Assuming a particular individual mindset or inner intent may change the flow of wider events, how can this be done without contradicting the individuated intents of others? This would be a kind of sum zero game. Perhaps even, a battle of wills. It seems the other option is that cause and effect is an individuated illusion.

 

[smcder]

One of those artificially dirty little secrets the "establishment" doesn't want the public to know. As if the truth about opioids weren't reason enough for caution.

I'm ill grounded in much of the literature discussed here. But to pick around the edges: I see an inherent contradiction based on human perception of cause and effect. Assuming a particular individual mindset or inner intent may change the flow of wider events, how can this be done without contradicting the individuated intents of others? This would be a kind of sum zero game. Perhaps even, a battle of wills. It seems the other option is that cause and effect is an individuated illusion.

As if the truth about opioids weren't reason enough for caution.

What is the truth about opioids?

Assuming a particular individual mindset or inner intent may change the flow of wider events, how can this be done without contradicting the individuated intents of others?

Not sure I understand . . . are you asking if the world is the way we will it, how does that work because everyone is willing it a different way?

It seems the other option is that cause and effect is an individuated illusion.

Could you explain this part a little more too?

 

[boomerang]

What is the truth about opioids?

Hmm...Now I have made expert-sounding noises and must risk exposing my ignorance yet again. Based on what I know: Opioids have a substantial potential for physical habituation that varies greatly amongst
individuals (and even amongst various substances) . I think they can be a one-way downward path for some, a passing diversion for others, and often something in between. Or perhaps for rare individuals like Burroughs, a very unconventional but survivable lifestyle. I will quote what one of my Canadian in-laws once said in passing, that "Americans are paranoid about drugs." I disagreed strongly at the time, but have since come to think he was in some measure correct.

Not sure I understand . . . are you asking if the world is the way we will it, how does that work because everyone is willing it a different way?

Essentially, yes. Assume for the sake of argument that everyone's idea of the power of positive thinking is that everyone else be tele-transported to the planet Mars. Discounting some kind of branching multi-verse scenario, the logical contradictions seem obvious.

Could you explain this part a little more too?

The concept of individual free will as an emergent/subjective or as a fundamental phenomenon of nature has been discussed here in much greater depth than I could hope to exceed. It's my lay impression that what we know of the brain and its chemical and electrical substrates, and especially as the willful observer becomes entangled when attempting cause and effect processes at (duck!) quantum scales, free will as subjective/emergent seems more likely. But frankly, I'm skipping stones on water here and watching the spreading ripples, so to speak.

 

[smcder]

Hmm...Now I have made expert-sounding noises and must risk exposing my ignorance yet again. Based on what I know: Opioids have a substantial potential for physical habituation that varies greatly amongst
individuals (and even amongst various substances) . I think they can be a one-way downward path for some, a passing diversion for others, and often something in between. Or perhaps for rare individuals like Burroughs, a very unconventional but survivable lifestyle. I will quote what one of my Canadian in-laws once said in passing, that "Americans are paranoid about drugs." I disagreed strongly at the time, but have since come to think he was in some measure correct.

Essentially, yes. Assume for the sake of argument that everyone's idea of the power of positive thinking is that everyone else be tele-transported to the planet Mars. Discounting some kind of branching multi-verse scenario, the logical contradictions seem obvious.

The concept of individual free will as an emergent/subjective or as a fundamental phenomenon of nature has been discussed here in much greater depth than I could hope to exceed. It's my lay impression that what we know of the brain and its chemical and electrical substrates, and especially as the willful observer becomes entangled when attempting cause and effect processes at (duck!) quantum scales, free will as subjective/emergent seems more likely. But frankly, I'm skipping stones on water here and watching the spreading ripples, so to speak.

Essentially, yes. Assume for the sake of argument that everyone's idea of the power of positive thinking is that everyone else be tele-transported to the planet Mars. Discounting some kind of branching multi-verse scenario, the logical contradictions seem obvious.

I don't know any traditions of magic that promise that kind of power. The definition of magic I've been using is change in consciousness according to will, so the Harry Potter stuff is right out.

I recommend the John Michael Greer article I linked above for an overview of this definition of magic:

The Archdruid Report: A Preparation for Philosophy

which he argues is the historical one - or just Google John Michael Greer and magic or definition of magic.

This idea of magic could be seen as psychological - the use of techniques to alter aspects of consciousness that couldn't otherwise be affected and so the effect of magic is indirect - change your attitude, change your actions and change (some part) of "the world". This is in the vein of what Norman Vincent Peale and Napoleon Hill and many others after them have offered. The tools used here are imagination and will. (Which, if you think about it, are the two tools anyone has to make changes in the world.) Or perhaps consciousness also has some direct effect on the world, then changes in consciousness would have direct effects.

But the battle of wills aspect you suggest is in many (most?) mundane actions we take too.

Magic traditions also warn of unintended consequences, of getting what you want but in a quite unexpected and perhaps undesirable way. But this risk is inherent in any action. This book was written about the law of unintended consequences in technology:

Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences (Vintage): Edward Tenner: 9780679747567: Amazon.com: Books

There are various other rules in magic about what sort of things you should and shouldn't use magic to do, about trying to influence another person's will or cause harm (the three fold law) and about having a path to what you want as magic may use the path of least resistance.

For me, when I begin to think about what I want, what I really want and what I am willing to do to get it - then the problems of not only magic, but wanting begin to come clear.

One last note - we often ascribe to the subconscious tremendous powers in order to explain odd phenomena like synchronicities, it gets used a bit like the branching multi-verse scenario i.e. conveniently.

I'll leave the free will matter to others, but I'm sympathetic to Isaac Bashevis Singer's take on it:

We must believe in free will — we have no choice

 

[smcder]

Hmm...Now I have made expert-sounding noises and must risk exposing my ignorance yet again. Based on what I know: Opioids have a substantial potential for physical habituation that varies greatly amongst
individuals (and even amongst various substances) .

. . .

I will quote what one of my Canadian in-laws once said in passing, that "Americans are paranoid about drugs." I disagreed strongly at the time, but have since come to think he was in some measure correct.

. . .

I don't much about it, but the issues with opioids that I have heard about is adulteration at the street level with other drugs, the frequently associated poverty and poor nutrition, etc. - not that I think anyone should pursue even pharmaceutical grade opiate addiction as a lifestyle . . . just that I don't think it's physically destructive, per se - it probably does rob the soul - from what I can tell, distilled alcohol is considered one of the most physically devastating drugs and is also physically addictive, but functional alcoholics are not entirely rare. Eventually, of course, everything catches up to you . . . but as Clint Eastwood said in The Unforgiven "we've all got it coming, kid"

- as for the Americans paranoid about drugs, that's interesting . . . what does it mean?

I understand they are selling pot legally in Colorado now out of stores and we do love our cigarettes and alcohol and coffee and prescription meds and OTC meds of abuse and legal workout supplements - steroid like and stimulant compounds that are engineered around illegal substance laws but which can be very effective - oh and ritalin/ adderral to provide a competitive edge for students. I would guess we (as Americans) have more or less embraced those drugs.

 

[boomerang]

just that I don't think it's physically destructive, per se - it probably does rob the soul - from what I can tell, distilled alcohol is considered one of the most physically devastating drugs and is also physically addictive, but functional alcoholics are not entirely rare. Eventually, of course, everything catches up to you . . . but as Clint Eastwood said in The Unforgiven "we've all got it coming, kid"

I agree on all counts. Anything that hijacks the natural rewards system the brain uses to model reality in way that makes life durably meaningful must be regarded as potentially dangerous. However, problems often arise when "life", for reasons of chronic pain--both physical and emotional, or even through neurological dysfunction--fails to provide needed rewards. Here is one crack in the door.

- as for the Americans paranoid about drugs, that's interesting . . . what does it mean?

This is another of those highly charged issues where a search for commonsense balance competes with raw emotionalism, and often loses. Policies have, at least since the days of Prohibition and Anslinger, been legally schizophrenic. I think your rundown of socially acceptable but potentially dangerous drugs in this society qualifies almost as a synopsis of our discussion. We are hardly the only culture unable to come to grips with this. Our species has a long and confused relationship with that which alters its mind from the inside out. (the mind-body problem yet again) But I think our culture has an especially acute tendency to "oversimpify and attack" on this issue. And our government has been all too willing to stoke the flames. Hence the notoriously failed doctrines of "Just Say No" and the War On Drugs. We too often confuse ills and Idiosyncrasies inherent in the human condition with their outward manifestations. This line of reasoning is predicated on the assumption that use of mind altering substances is neccessarily bad. Would Burroughs have been Burroughs without drugs ? There are no simple answers here.

Ethical issues are rarely clear cut, whereas laws issuing from them must be. So the rubber meets the road.

Sorry for the rant. Time to climb down from my teetering stack of soapboxes and have a cup of de-caffeinated coffee.

 

[smcder]

. . .
Essentially, yes. Assume for the sake of argument that everyone's idea of the power of positive thinking is that everyone else be tele-transported to the planet Mars. Discounting some kind of branching multi-verse scenario, the logical contradictions seem obvious.
. . .

I overlooked the obvious answer to your question . . .

logical contradiction schmogical contradiction . . . it's magic! ;-)

 

[smcder]

I agree on all counts. Anything that hijacks the natural rewards system the brain uses to model reality in way that makes life durably meaningful must be regarded as potentially dangerous. However, problems often arise when "life", for reasons of chronic pain--both physical and emotional, or even through neurological dysfunction--fails to provide needed rewards. Here is one crack in the door.

This is another of those highly charged issues where a search for commonsense balance competes with raw emotionalism, and often loses. Policies have, at least since the days of Prohibition and Anslinger, been legally schizophrenic. I think your rundown of socially acceptable but potentially dangerous drugs in this society qualifies almost as a synopsis of our discussion. We are hardly the only culture unable to come to grips with this. Our species has a long and confused relationship with that which alters its mind from the inside out. (the mind-body problem yet again) But I think our culture has an especially acute tendency to "oversimpify and attack" on this issue. And our government has been all too willing to stoke the flames. Hence the notoriously failed doctrines of "Just Say No" and the War On Drugs. We too often confuse ills and Idiosyncrasies inherent in the human condition with their outward manifestations. This line of reasoning is predicated on the assumption that use of mind altering substances is neccessarily bad. Would Burroughs have been Burroughs without drugs ? There are no simple answers here.

Ethical issues are rarely clear cut, whereas laws issuing from them must be. So the rubber meets the road.

Sorry for the rant. Time to climb down from my teetering stack of soapboxes and have a cup of de-caffeinated coffee.

I agree on all counts.

I'm disappointed! ;-)

However, problems often arise when "life", for reasons of chronic pain--both physical and emotional, or even through neurological dysfunction--fails to provide needed rewards.

And just there is the need for compassion but also the idea of "chronic pain" takes on a life of its own and now perhaps exceed the clinical boundaries.

I think the mind has a tremendous capacity to deal with pain but it requires character, discipline and poise. Character can't be prescribed. (There is perhaps a place for magic here.)

Are you familiar with the Monks of New Skete? They take abused dogs or dogs that have been trained as guard dogs (essentially systematically hardened (i.e. abused) and reform them. The first part of the process is to assess a dog for the above characteristics which then informs what they may be able to do with a particular dog. Much easier I am sure with a dog than a person.

The use of mind and mood-altering drugs is well documented throughout the animal kingdom. One story that sticks out, and I believe it is a Terrance McKenna story, so its questionable - is of the discovery of a kind of hallucinogenic cactus by observing a rabbit that came and dug out a hole at the base of the cactus and then some time later (days or weeks) returned to consume the fermented juice. A rabbit, that is.

Time to climb down from my teetering stack of soapboxes and have a cup of de-caffeinated coffee.

Again, I'm disappointed! ;-)