The Art of Magical Thinking

[Wade]

"Some oriental guy ???"

 

[Randall]

lots of things swirling around here - what we mean by "thinking" - it's not always that we mean sitting down to rationally think something out but the word usually does carry some kind of coherence, some kind of analogy to the real world - "he thought through the tangled emotions" otherwise we use words like hallucination or visionary or distortion - . . . so I'm trying to grasp what magical thinking would be - Magick is usually pretty well ordered too - if you look at the esoteric tradition there are principles like "as above, so below" or analogical thinking, the "doctrine of signatures" in herbology - things that might not stand up to the scrutiny of science but have stood up to hundreds of years of practice . . . some traditions engage in intentional perversions/distortions of thought: "crazy wisdom" - Koan practice in Zen, engaging in evoking the opposite to make something happen - I think of these things when I think of "magical" and "Magickal" thinking . . . in my own practices I often try to get "hold" of something very specific I am working on, to "feel" it (kinesthetically, say in my "gut" - literally in my stomach) and then visualize unwrapping it, there may be sounds and sensations and visualizations and then when I come to some sense in my gut that it's been unravelled I find my thinking seems to be clearer . . .

I tend to think of magical thinking as a polar opposite to critical thinking, and equate magical thinking with the type of things we see promoted in New Agey type gobbledegook like The Secret & What The Bleep Do We Know. Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking. It's fine for art, entertainment and casual daydreaming, but not as something to provide serious explanations for the unexplained.

 

[Burnt State]

@ufology, you may have missed that whole part on synesthesia, or maybe you didn't see the video, but the idea of standing rational, critical thought directly opposite magical, creative thinking is a limited view of the capacity of ways of thinking that may be plural, distorted, lateral, blended etc.. So far, aside from the small bits of radar trace data and multipe witness events we don't have much by way of rational evidence to deal with.

Given that we use language such as "High Strangeness" and "the Oz Effect" to describe the bizarre and eclectic aspects of encounters with UFO's and occupants, it strikes me that a much more productive approach to exploring this phenomenon might be to try to use a more creative approach. So far linear thinking has taught us very little, and around here you are one of the very few frequent posters that is convinced UFO's come from other planets. With that kind of progress maybe it's time to look at things from another angle, not to get the chakras fired up with thoughts of space brothers dancing with crystals in our heads but to literally think outside the box of rationality?

 

[Randall]

It is hilarious that a large number of folks here think that creativity has helped us understand UFO's better!

Really?

What do we now know through the benefit of this creativity? What do we now know (other than the insurmountable and growing stack of rational evidence for prosaic explanations) that we didn't know in 1947?

Lance

From the perspective of understanding what we believe to be the objective material reality of UFOs as alien craft, I think your point is fair. However I put a checkmark on 3 and 4 because creativity ( option 3 ) can be considered within the context of "understanding and appreciating strange phenomenon" from a historical, cultural, and mythological perspective. Perhaps it may even help us understand the objective reality of it in some way. For example Phillip J. Klass' plasma theory for UFOs was IMO creative, and the follow-up studies led to the conclusion that the plasma theory was unlikely. Skeptics are often very creative thinkers. It's just applied from a different perspective, and I sincerely think we can benefit as much from creative skepticism as creative investigation.

 

[boomerang]

It is hilarious that a large number of folks here think that creativity has helped us understand UFO's better!

Really?

What do we now know through the benefit of this creativity? What do we now know (other than the insurmountable and growing stack of rational evidence for prosaic explanations) that we didn't know in 1947?


Lance

Since you keep asking this same question couched in numerous ways, I will give you the same answer. Why do so many credible people sincerely claim experience of events too immediate and strange to be explained away as mis-identification or delusion? I will settle for any reasonable answer to this question, sociological, psychological or otherwise. We have hashed over virtually every argument and its counterpoise here. I, for one, want to know why the pilot or air traffic controller on whom my life depends, or the nuclear launch personnel on whom millions of lives may hinge, bear witness to high-strangeness events in the sky.

And now a psychic prediction on my part: You will say there is a perfectly mundane answer to be found in society's "noise". And I will politely disagree.

 

[Randall]

Yes, we disagree. From the skeptical viewpoint, I will say that I suspect that there is a prosaic cause (actually many different causes) for UFO's. You don't buy that. I understand.

But the pretense of 50% or so of the poll respondents is that magical "creative" thinking helped us understand UFO's. I call bullshit on that. The idea that science doesn't work for us therefore we need to make up fairy tales to explain our beliefs is, I suggest, not a very footworthy path.

Lance

You make a valid point from that singular perspective, but it's also a little presumptuous to assume that perspective is the reason people made that selection. Please see my previous post where I explain why I chose creativity as one of the selections.

 

[smcder]

I tend to think of magical thinking as a polar opposite to critical thinking, and equate magical thinking with the type of things we see promoted in New Agey type gobbledegook like The Secret & What The Bleep Do We Know. Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking. It's fine for art, entertainment and casual daydreaming, but not as something to provide serious explanations for the unexplained.

I think we can all use Wikipedia by now . . . ;-)

 

[smcder]

It is hilarious that a large number of folks here think that creativity has helped us understand UFO's better!

Really?

What do we now know through the benefit of this creativity? What do we now know (other than the insurmountable and growing stack of rational evidence for prosaic explanations) that we didn't know in 1947?

Lance

What is that a picture of on your profile Lance? Are you catching a football? It's a very small picture and I can't tell.

 

[Randall]

I think we can all use Wikipedia by now . . . ;-)

It's good practice to cite something as a source during discussion. Would it be preferable not to include a handy relevant link, or to cite something more obscure? Why the comment?

 

[smcder]

It's good practice to cite something as a source during discussion. Would it be preferable not to include a handy relevant link, or to cite something more obscure? Why the comment?

I don't know man - it just hits me the wrong way - someone puts up a thread to open things up, to get it loose, to do a little brainstorming - and we have to get right away a Moodyism:

"It is hilarious that a large number of folks here think that creativity has helped us understand UFO's better!"

(HA HA - well, as we say in the south, Brother Lance - bless your heart . . . bless your heart . . . )

and then we have to get a link to Wikipedia to "magical thinking" - really? because isn't that the title of the thread? can't folks be trusted to look that one up on their own?

I tend to think of magical thinking as a polar opposite to critical thinking,

yes - and that's the point!

and equate magical thinking with the type of things we see promoted in New Agey type gobbledegook like The Secret & What The Bleep Do We Know.

of course you do! but equally of course, not everyone else does - magical thinking could mean many things - such as the example of "kinesthetic thinking" that I offered above (and maybe that's not magical thinking - but the point of the thread is to discuss it - kick it around a bit)

Here's the Wikipedia article: Magical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's fine for art, entertainment and casual daydreaming, but not as something to provide serious explanations for the unexplained.

you put art with entertainment with casual daydreaming? really? - and in such a way as to indicate these are unimportant aspects of life??

ok . . .

 

[boomerang]

you put art with entertainment with casual daydreaming? really? - and in such a way as to indicate these are unimportant aspects of life??

ok . . .

We are back to having to acknowledge the intangible realm of self awareness. A Mozart symphony is pressure waves in sequence and a Michelangelo canvas a 2 dimensional pattern of colored paint. Both true statements that usually miss the point.

 

[nameless]

We are back to having to acknowledge the intangible realm of self awareness. A Mozart symphony is pressure waves in sequence and a Michelangelo canvas a 2 dimensional pattern of colored paint. Both true statements that usually miss the point.

This is the crux of it.

This is a rich vein of irony.

 

[Randall]

and then we have to get a link to Wikipedia to "magical thinking" - really? because isn't that the title of the thread? can't folks be trusted to look that one up on their own?

I take the time to insert links for clarity and our reader's convenience, not because I think they don't know how to look up a topic on Wikipedia. If you don't want to use the link and prefer to look it up yourself, or post a link to another reference for the sake of comparison, that's entirely up to you, and I always look forward to your posts because your posts are thought provoking and informative.

... magical thinking could mean many things - such as the example of "kinesthetic thinking" that I offered above (and maybe that's not magical thinking - but the point of the thread is to discuss it - kick it around a bit)

Sure. Just because I started off with the standard fare doesn't mean we can't compare ideas. Let's kick it around.

you put art with entertainment with casual daydreaming? really? - and in such a way as to indicate these are unimportant aspects of life??
ok . . .

Not exactly. That was meant to differentiate ( which is important ) the mindset of serious inquiry ( which is important ) from time off from that ( which is also important ), so that we don't confuse things like Quantum Mysticism with actual science, for example like the woo around manifesting reality or the observer effect being caused by consciousness. Simply put, it's being able to separate fact from fiction while being able to enjoy both.

 

[smcder]

[quote="ufology, post: 175571, member: 2682"

Not exactly. That was meant to differentiate ( which is important ) the mindset of serious inquiry ( which is important ) from time off from that ( which is also important ), so that we don't confuse things like Quantum Mysticism with actual science, for example like the woo around manifesting reality or the observer effect being caused by consciousness. Simply put, it's being able to separate fact from fiction while being able to enjoy both.[/quote]

As I said it just hit me the wrong way - I apologize for saying it the smart-alecky way that I did - I am no fan of ridicule in any form and I should have chosen my words more thoughtfully - the gist of it I stand behind, though and I do realize you are sincere in posting the link . . .

Not exactly. That was meant to differentiate ( which is important ) the mindset of serious inquiry ( which is important ) from time off from that ( which is also importan

and I maintain that there is for more value to these things than merely time off from serious inquiry . . . I don't see Lance's posts, are those from another thread? Perhaps I owe him an apology as well if I took his comment out of context.

As Gene would say: "Peace"!

 

[Randall]

[quote="ufology, post: 175571, member: 2682"
As I said it just hit me the wrong way - I apologize for saying it the smart-alecky way that I did ...

Hey, no problem and no need for an apology. I've evoked more than one backsplash with my posts. Like my recent posts on "pet people". I was sitting at a Starbucks one day watching a guy and a girl meet up for what looked like a date, and I kid you not, this girl went on and on and on for what seemed like a good 30 minutes ( I could help overhearing this ) about her pet budgie, and only stopped to answer her cell phone. The guys role in this consisted mostly of nodding and smiling. I would have lasted until the first cell phone call, quietly excused myself, and left. But that's me when it comes to people who drone on forever about their pets, and the cell phone is just the icing on the cake. Here's something that I find illustrates pet people quite well:

https://soundcloud.com/soundcloud.com%2Fcbc-radio-one%2Fpetless-sketch

 

[Han]

RE Madness:
I have a saying that I have probably stolen from somewhere, either way it rings true. (in my opinion).

A mentally ill person with no money is called "Mad".
A mentally ill person with money is called "Eccentric".

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So I must be mad cause I'm too poor to be eccentric, right?

 

[smcder]

RE Madness:
I have a saying that I have probably stolen from somewhere, either way it rings true. (in my opinion).

A mentally ill person with no money is called "Mad".
A mentally ill person with money is called "Eccentric".

this bears out from my experience too . . . mostly around the ability to afford meds and attorneys to keep them out of trouble!

 

[smcder]

Hey, no problem and no need for an apology. I've evoked more than one backsplash with my posts. Like my recent posts on "pet people". I was sitting at a Starbucks one day watching a guy and a girl meet up for what looked like a date, and I kid you not, this girl went on and on and on for what seemed like a good 30 minutes ( I could help overhearing this ) about her pet budgie, and only stopped to answer her cell phone. The guys role in this consisted mostly of nodding and smiling. I would have lasted until the first cell phone call, quietly excused myself, and left. But that's me when it comes to people who drone on forever about their pets. Here's something that I find illustrates pet people quite well:

https://soundcloud.com/soundcloud.com%2Fcbc-radio-one%2Fpetless-sketch

well - you probably won't like my last post on that subject then, then :-( but I think all of us here in the West have a ways to go to justify any indignation on almost any subject - we consume far out of proportion . . . the fact that you had the money and leisure to observe this in a Starbucks is some evidence of my point . . . it's not the first time you've mentioned Starbucks - so, if it is applicable - drop that expensive coffee habit and donate to the homeless! or better, go in and buy a coffee and take it to a homeless person, establish some communication - there is a tremendous need for contact and social acceptance there (yes - for those who bring it up - you can get taken advantage of - that comes with the survival mode those folks are in . . .) and there is probably a homeless person living very close to that Starbucks, if my experience is any indication - you might (or might not) be amazed at resourceful people can be . . .

 

[smcder]

So I must be mad cause I'm too poor to be eccentric, right?

Gene, you are as Mad as a Hatter . . . and welcome to the Tea Party!