There is no Spoon.

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 14 Nov 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	14 Nov 2002
How many of you have seen the Matrix? I have seen in dozens of times, but only JUST understood the real meaning behind it, and it's consequences on magick... If the world is an illusion, then so are the rules that we live by: The laws of physics, etc... If these laws are but illusion, then there are no rules or limitations on us... If this is true, then surely we can bend and shape reality as we will, with no boundaries to what we can do... Is this what makes magick work? Coudl there at some stage be somebody who eventually manages to bend their own understanding of an illusory worl,d and thus manages to do ANYTHING with magick? The spoon isn't really there, it's just an illusion, so when you try and bend it, you are failing to do so, cuz you are still assuming it is there and that it lives by rules. When you see that there is no spoon, and bend your own understanding of reality, then you manage to bend the 'spoon'. Any thoughts? Is this feasible? Kiama

Pollux	14 Nov 2002
Guess what? They'll broadcast the Matrix on TV tonight. :D But I am going to watch the MTV EMAs so I'll have to skip on that... :P *LOL* That movie is neat. And it got me thinking about the spoon-boy a lot too, and the consequences that point had, also in relation with magick. The whole question is just about "THE MATRIX" itself, and the illusion it is - by bending your understanding of it you can achieve outstanding feats like flying and stopping bullets and so on. It in a exercise of understanding of the reality, as you say, and therefore also of awareness. Through that conscience, by pure means of "believing" you can do what thee like - jumping skyscrapers, hold helicopters with a rope, be the Chosen. It is a sort of "leap of faith", like in the Indiana Jones's movie (when did Major Tom change his signature? *LOL*). In Magick, there's a slight difference in that it is not only about awareness (and I might say that the awareness itself is of a different nature). It mostly is a matter of WILL. By visualizing and working, you hone your volunty and exploit your will-power to provoke a necessary consequence, the wanted change. It goes beyond the leap of faith, since not only you believe you can do something, but you want to see it expressed too. The difference, I mean, i the one standing between the "leap of faith" (Matrix), and will-power (Magick). Of course the leap requires strong will, but the purpose is the leap itself and not the specific purpose you have designed for magick working. In Matrix: "I CAN DO IT! I CAN DO IT!" In Orbis praesenti's Magick: "I WILL IT! I WILL IT!" Uni is tiring... Just rambling, and trying to confuse... }) *LOL*

Rhiannon	14 Nov 2002
Ignorance is bliss. If all I am is a battery in a slimy pod then I'd rather be here, and not know, I think. R :)

Pollux	14 Nov 2002
You are the traitor!!! Rhianon-Cypher... I bet you are too fond of meat and steaks, that's why you talk like that!!! *LOL*

divinerguy	14 Nov 2002
Can you change physical properties - yes, of course you can. Do unseen forces act upon us? Yes they do, all the time. (Gravity, tidal forces, radio waves). We would be arrogant to presume that we have discovered or mastered all known forms of energy. Gravitational lensing by dense astronomical bodies has only been proven within the last 15 years. Its only a minor leap of faith to accept the possibility that we can alter our reality by the use of our minds. In my viewpoint, its simply a question of when and how. It may be a million years from now, but it IS possible. Einstein wrote, "Free spirits will always encounter violent opposition from those of mediocre minds." Its free thinking that allows us to create wonderful new worlds.

Umbrae	14 Nov 2002
There is no spoon. The Buddhists have been saying this for years. You may want to read “Travels” by Michael Crichton (non-fiction).

Sorceress_Jade	14 Nov 2002
Pollux, I think there is no difference. I think that what they were portraying in the Matrix (at least on Neo's part) was not that he 'Thinks he can' but that he believes he can... KNOWS he can, and so he can. It's the same as willing something. To will something you not only have to want it, you must believe that it will change because you want it to. Must know that it will bend to your will. And Kiama, i like your elaboration/explination. Brings lots of things to think on. Thnx for the title Umbrae, I'll probably take a look at that. :D

ihcoyc	14 Nov 2002
There is no spoon. But all must bow before the ultimate reality of the ineffable, cosmic Spork. I'm of two minds about the Matrix and its whole business about the illusionary nature of reality. The film itself strikes me as the ultimate paranoid fantasy: malevolent aliens manipulating reality itself. These sorts of ideas of reference are things I deal with too often, and frankly the incidence of paranoid fantasies in U.S. popular culture is starting to reach a level where I, at least, find it mildly disconcerting.

Laurel	14 Nov 2002
Kiama, there is a fascinating White Wolf RPG game called "Mage" which plays with similar ideas as The Matrix. The idea of reality as illusionary and manipulatiable is in fact one of the core ideas behind Western magic and much, much older than the movie. But just as there is no spoon, there are no pod people either. *g* The real "matrix" is a lot more complicated and I think ultimately ineffatable, imo. Laurel

violinlily	14 Nov 2002
lo all, that sounds soo cool, and it gives me something to think about.... there is no spoon.... wow..... the matrix is one of my favorite movies, and I too have seen it alot (the DVD rules:)), the pathetic thing is, I never could decide if the kid was a boy or a girl. I'm bad w/ accents (no offense anybody), ton amie, violinlily :TPC (my favorite card from the Hanson-Roberts deck)

The Enchanter	14 Nov 2002
I have tried to bend spoons before. Failed every time. And I have tried to break or move pencils. Failed. But you must realize the true secret for yourself before you may use telekineses as some people call it. It is a hard subject to teach or to be tought.

Sea Sprite	14 Nov 2002
Hi Kiama, I have to agree with Umbrae that there is no spoon. :)

Umbrae	14 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by violinlily …I never could decide if the kid was a boy or a girl. Yes…the child was… Quote: Originally posted by The Enchanter I have tried to bend spoons before. Failed every time... Like duh…You tried to bend the spoon! There is no spoon – so how can you bend it! You must see beyond the spoon – into the spaces that separate the atomic structure that we consensually agree is a spoon.

Fuzzmello	15 Nov 2002
Ok, I'm going to speak up here. I've been a practicing Buddhist for over ten years. (I'm just telling you that so you know where I'm coming from, I'm sure no expert on Buddhism.) First of all, exercises like the one in this thread are relatively unimportant, since the object of such consideration is to lead us to the realization of emptiness, the absolute state of being. That being said, it is fun and interesting to delve into the mysterious now and then. Thus I have heard it said that all things in existance are compounded. They are made up of smaller things, which are in turn made up of smaller things still. Eventually, we come to the point of everything being made up of particles. There is no spoon, only particles. This is sixth-grade science, yet we all accept the spoon held in front of us as solid. It is our acceptance that makes the spoon real, not the spoon itself. If we accept that the spoon exists, it does. If we are able to accept that the spoon does not exist regardless of conditions, it does not. We don't alter the nature of reality with our minds, only our accepted nature of reality. Fuzz

MystiqueMoonlight	15 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Yes…the child was… Like duh…You tried to bend the spoon ! There is no spoon – so how can you bend it! You must see beyond the spoon – into the spaces that separate the atomic structure that we consensually agree is a spoon. Just to expand on that point in case anyone else is missing the point. Is the sky really blue just because we "see" it that way? How can one bend a spoon if they see the object that they want to bend? Perhaps "seeing" beyond the spoon is a little confusing to some :) Leran to NOT see the spoon but the bend...

Kiama	15 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by ihcoyc I'm of two minds about the Matrix and its whole business about the illusionary nature of reality. The film itself strikes me as the ultimate paranoid fantasy: malevolent aliens manipulating reality itself. You may be surprised to find out that one of teh most famou Philosophers of the world actually had a theory exactly like that. Descartes. Barmy as a fruit bat. My main aim in starting this thread was not to discuss telekinesis or spoon bending, though I have a feeling a new thread may be started about that... It was to discuss our perception of reality. How do we KNOW that what we see exists? Through our senses some may say. But how do we KNOW our senses are not just deceiving us? And when I look at the colour green, how do I know it is not Pollux's blue, or Umbrae's red? Is what I see in the mirror the same as what others see when they look at me? This may seem like pointles and rambling philsophy, and indeed it annoyed me when people would pass it off as proper philosophy when I was doing my A-level in it. But now it's bugging me for a different reason... What if it's all true...? Kiama

Umbrae	15 Nov 2002
Uh...Kiama...just to set the record straight... I am color blind. What I see, and what you see are not the same at all. But we agree – consensually – that what we see is the same. But on a real physical level…it is not.

ihcoyc	15 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama You may be surprised to find out that one of teh most famou Philosophers of the world actually had a theory exactly like that. Descartes. Barmy as a fruit bat. I remember reading something by a much more recent philosopher --- I think it was Daniel Dennett, in Consciousness Explained --- who argued against the likelihood of Descartes' demon scenario, or the Matrix scenario, or something just like it (What if we're all really just brains in vats somewhere?) At any rate, his argument was based on the computing power needed to generate a verisimilar but fictitious world, and the likelihood of errors and system failures being introduced by that needed complexity. He basically concluded that a computer programme complex enough to fake reality would be broken all the time.

Sorceress_Jade	15 Nov 2002
Here's my take on perspective: http://www.geocities.com/jade_tessa/literature/ (A bit lengthy as it was originally an assignment.)

SlyR	26 Nov 2002
I think one musn't get caught up in the erroneous, albeit rather exciting notion that physical reality is illusory. Yogis and Magicians alike have taught that the physical world is very real, but also that it is only one of a number of realities, some quite subjective. All of these realities coexist, and the enlightened can experience higher realities through a great deal of discipline. The one thing all of these planes of existence have in common is the fact that they are governed by vibratory principles. Quantum physics is beginning to support the "matter is energy" premise that mystics have understood for ages. The physical world is Malkuth. It's just the dregs; there's a lot more. However, it is all real. In a statement, what ISN'T real? Impossible to comprehend: The very thought of something creates it in some subjective reality. You can't even really say that "nothing isn't real," because "nothing," at least Kabbalistically speaking, contains everything. Lol... I just realized that the second paragraph above bears a spooky resemblance to a statement from a scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. You know, I think they came pretty close there. Freaky.

Royal Cat	26 Nov 2002
Thanks for the fascinating thread! Matrix is one of my fav. movies! ok, I realize this thread isn't supposed to be about spoon bending itself... but I just wanted to post this interesting site for those who are interested. http://www.fork-you.com/forkwelc.htm Cat

SlyR	27 Nov 2002
I just had an afterthought: Crowley would argue, "Sure, spoon-bending is possible. See, Magick!" Whether your mind acts directly upon an object or whether it commands a physical vehicle in performing the task, either way a magickal act is completed. The secret of magick is that bending the spoon with your physical hands is no different than doing it "mentally:" An idea is formed, results happen. Fantastic means of accomplishing tasks are, sadly, mostly within the realm of film and books. If TK is indeed possible, which I am not denying, I could study it for years to develop the mental power that bending a spoon requires. I can also, however, bend it with my hands right now, thus saving years of effort. Just a little mental masturbation for y'all. Happy Thanksgiving, btw.

DarkElectric	27 Nov 2002
Dr Jocelyn Elders would be very proud of you. In an intellectual sense, of course.

AmounrA	27 Nov 2002
slyr-""Crowley would argue, "Sure, spoon-bending is possible. See, Magick!" Whether your mind acts directly upon an object or whether it commands a physical vehicle in performing the task, either way a magickal act is completed."" I completely agree with you here. To me this is the 'magick'. There is a scene in the movie 'bedazzled [original version with peter cook], where Stanley Moon is promised an Ice Cream , as one of his magick wishes [for selling his soul], agreeing, the devil then takes him on a bus, borrows five pence and buys Moon an Ice Cream........."thats not magick ", say an unimpressed moon...:-)

SlyR	28 Nov 2002
Holy Cow, Amoun and I find common ground! The general idea we seem to share is that magick is a way of looking at the Universe, not just a practice. "Every conscious act is a magickal act," says Crowley. It is that attitude that discerns the real "spoon-benders" from those who are still harboring a romantic notion of magicians as spell-mongers and enchanters. Enchantments, evocations, and psychic feats are just practical applications of a greater underlying philosophy.

jmd	28 Nov 2002
To return to the original question of this thread I have finally only just read (great thread, shame about the title - or rather, my mistaken understanding of it)... If there is a spoon on the table (as opposed to a cat on the mat), then of course there is a spoon - that the world may be illusory (maya) doesn't mean it isn't, but that it isn't what it appears. Even the description of the spoon at its molecular or sub-atomic level isn't complete, for its description needs to include, amongst other factors, its purposeful function. That Descartes postulated a demiurge was also within a quite narrow context: is it possible for me to doubt absolutely all presumed knowledge? In order to do this, he postulated various alternative scenarios to those he would normally presume - this, of course, did not make them plausible, any more than the fictional interesting film discussed above (the Matrix), or the brain-in-the-vat recent philosophical equivalent to Descartes deceitful demon (we must have read the same materials, ihcoyc!). In terms of Descartes's pursuit of 'undoubtable knowledge', he did arrive at one, viz: cogito, ergo sum ('I think, therefore I am', or, to give an expanded explanatory translation: 'because of the mere fact that I am conscious, I, whatever this I might be, must actually exist'). The problem of qualia (whether Kiama's and Pollux's colour experience is similar or different) says more about whether experiential explanations can be reduced to physicalism then whether the colour of my carpet is ^&%#@! (a new colour I haven't has yet sought copyright for, and so will not name to protect against intellectual theft ;)) What is similar, however, is the concept which we may both 'apply' to our otherwise meaningless sensations in order to 'understand' what the world is presenting - though it may also be possible that we apply differing concepts to similar sensations ('Is this a Gavagai?' - see W.V.O. Quine's Word & Object). Personally, I do think that knowledge is possible (see R. Steiner's The Science of Knowing), even when a second-order doubt creates scepticism about our first order knowledge (Cf Russell & Oakley, both of whom would disagree with me). ----- Now catching up and coming to the later posts - I agree with SlyR, AmounrA and others: bending a spoon is both possible and quite effectively magically done with two hands (as long as the metal is reasonably soft). On another question to SlyR, is there a need to move this thread to Hindu sacred animals? ;) Great philosophical thread, Kiama :)

anjocoxo	28 Nov 2002
Hume was an english philosopher who said that it is the way we percept things that is important. For instance, we let a stone fall from our hand to the ground; how do we know for sure it will ALWAYS fall down? We've seen it fall hundreds of times and we know that gravitation exists, but are we SURE it will always be like that? The idea of the stone falling and gravitation is called "the constant laws of nature", but it means that that law can also fail one day, right? Anyway, Hume said that the expectation of the stone falling is not in the objects but in our own mind. When we talk about "laws of nature" or "cause and effect", we are actually talking about human habits, and not about what is rational. We are born without any expectations about the world; a child wouldn't be surprised if a stone didn't fall on the ground, right? The world is the way it is and we apprehend it progressively (sp?) through experience. But what would happen if our perceptions are wrong? If all my life I had only seen black horses, that doesn't mean that in the whole world there are ONLY black horses; we always see black crows but that doesn't mean that there aren't white crows... am I making myself clear? Maybe not everything you percept is correct, and perhaps the idea of the spoon and the idea of "reality", ie the reality we KNOW has nothing to do with the "real" world, where you can actually bend spoons..... :) Here were my 2 cents Anjo

allibee	28 Nov 2002
Just as a little aside, something keeps cropping up in my mind about this reality we find ourselves in: It is about the way our eyes work. Our eyes take in everything and then turn it 'up the right way' for us to understand. Does that therefore mean that the 'real world' is actually upside down? And we are effectively walking on the ceiling and fixing light bulbs to the floor? Which way is up? Which is the illusion? allibee

jmd	28 Nov 2002
In answer to your question, there was an experiment done quite a few years ago in which volunteers wore glasses which inverted the visual input. For a number of days, the subjects were disoriented - but amazingly, the visual field suddenly flipped upright: the image corrected itself despite this reversed reversed image... So is the world really 'reversed'?

jmd	28 Nov 2002
In terms of the Humean condition, and whether it is the human condition or not, this philosopher is certainly worth reading! With regards to inductive reasoning, and whether one may conclude from a set of examples that all are the same (all swans are black, of course - and all Tarot decks are called 'Marseilles'!), or that the 'best' explanation is the correct one (because the earliest extant decks are from northern Italy, Tarot must originate from there and at that time), or from a set of similar characteristics concluding that other characteristics must also be the case (all Tarot decks number Justice correctly VIII ;)) is not necessarily an epistemological problem, but a logical one. This is where Goethe, especially in his philosophical and scientific works, makes of these problems important epistemological contributions: take the time to allow the item(s) in question to reveal their intrinsic natures - and don't draw conclusions beyond the phenomena (though this too reveals, necessarily, concepts).

blue_fusion	28 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama How many of you have seen the Matrix? I have seen in dozens of times, but only JUST understood the real meaning behind it, and it's consequences on magick... If the world is an illusion, then so are the rules that we live by: The laws of physics, etc... If these laws are but illusion, then there are no rules or limitations on us... If this is true, then surely we can bend and shape reality as we will, with no boundaries to what we can do... Is this what makes magick work? Coudl there at some stage be somebody who eventually manages to bend their own understanding of an illusory worl,d and thus manages to do ANYTHING with magick? The spoon isn't really there, it's just an illusion, so when you try and bend it, you are failing to do so, cuz you are still assuming it is there and that it lives by rules. When you see that there is no spoon, and bend your own understanding of reality, then you manage to bend the 'spoon'. Any thoughts? Is this feasible? Kiama in a universe finite yet infinite, anything is possible (though a lot are highly improbable). thus, breaching improbability would lead to greater access to other possibilities, giving you more part in influencing reality. however, i do believe that the spoon is there, but really, it is the I that recognizes that particular spoon (thus you recognize a "different" spoon), or am i just mixing myphilisophers? LOL :)

Kiama	29 Nov 2002
SlyR: I agree with Crowley's definition of magick, and have got into some retty heated debates with Hermetic magicians because of it... This one guy was adamant that magick could only be performed in ritual using supernatural forces. To me, anything is a magickal action, simply because of my definition of magick: 'Magick is the art and science of focussing the will and directing your energy, in order to achieve a goal or attain a desire.' So, for me, picking up a glass and drinking isa magickal action. Studying hard for my exams is just as magickal as doing a spell to get good grades. I really don't see any distnction between the mundane and magickal world, which is why I call myself a Mundane Magician. Anjcoxo: David HUme is one of my fave philosophers, though throwing him into an argument just annoys people, cuz in most philosophical discussions, it is taken as given tt things we see and experience around us exist and can be proven to act as we assume they will. I am paraphrasing from Hume her, but he said something along the lines of... 'What right do we have to assume that the Universe will act in accordance with our beliefs about it?' Hume taught me (Indirectly of course!) how to question EEYRTHING... How do we know the world exists? Cuz we experience it with our senses. How do we know our senses exist? Um....... :eek: When I push a glass and it falls over, the two ations could, fpor all we know, be two totally unrelated things, but we just ASSUME that one is caused by the other. When I see green grass, is it the same colour as what somebody else sees? Is MY green, somebody else's blue? Hume also said that the only reason we don't bother to question our assumptions that fire is hot and water is wet, is cuz it would be too painful for us to do so... Anyway, this stuff is really great: It's the part of Philosophy., other than hte Philosophy of Religion and Mysticism, which is my thing... And no matter how many times I have this discussion, I never tire of it... (Aswell as the magickal bit... One day, my hermetic friend WILL understand what I'm trying to say... Hopefully...) Kiama

SlyR	30 Nov 2002
Kiama: I'm surprised that someone who claims to be Hermetic challenges what is one of High Magick's most defining ideals. He could learn a thing or two from you. Tell him to read the first chapter of Magick in Theory and Practice. For a few years I abandoned my magickal studies because I realized that ceremonial magick and Qabalah is in many ways indistinguishable from modern Pop Psychology. The ideas and techniques of self-empowerment in texts like the Magic of Thinking Big, the Power of Positive Thinking, Think and Grow Rich, and Seven Habits strongly resemble the techniques of creative visualisation and directed Will taught in the Western Mystery Schools. Whichever approach you choose will accomplish self-fulfillment and personal empowerment, because it all has to do with attuning yourself with the creative and practical forces you posess but rarely tap into.

jmd	30 Nov 2002
You make very good points there SlyR, but there is still a fundamental and crucial difference between self-empowerment pop-psychological tools and the Hermetic and Mystery schools: The Hermetic and Mystery schools assume the spiritual underpinning of existence ... ...unlike pop-psychological views, which seems to be based on, at most, agnostic premises.

Kiama	30 Nov 2002
SlyR: According to my Hermetic friend, ritual magick is better than 'Pop Psychology' or mundane ways of achieving 'enlightenment' because it is quicker. Kiama

AmounrA	30 Nov 2002
I think , to look at the spoon simply, it is there. In the sense of a physical shape we name and give uses to in our minds/world and call a 'spoon'. Each spoon is unique and belongs to a family of like shaped objects, collectively known as the 'spoon family'. The spoon family is not naturally occurring like melons, and is made by [in our case] Humans from planet Earth. If on another world, 'aliens' had objects shaped like like spoons, but used them to 'ping' things, and not for food transfer, would these still be spoons?. Is the 'spoon' the shape, or the function? -------------------------------------------- slyr- "For a few years I abandoned my magickal studies because I realized that ceremonial magick and Qabalah is in many ways indistinguishable from modern Pop Psychology. The ideas and techniques of self-empowerment in texts like the Magic of Thinking Big, the Power of Positive Thinking, Think and Grow Rich, and Seven Habits strongly resemble the techniques of creative visualisation and directed Will taught in the Western Mystery Schools. Whichever approach you choose will accomplish self-fulfillment and personal empowerment, because it all has to do with attuning yourself with the creative and practical forces you posess but rarely tap into."" I understand this. Imagine if at the age of 21, you where left on a tropical paradise with no predators and plentiful supplies of food[ growing]. Imagine you had had not studied of books ever, and could only speak language [and therefore think in language], and had never heard of any particular branch of esoteric study... Would it be possible for this person to become 'enlightened', a magus, a kabbalist (for example). If the person meditated and visulised, would they still see the tree of life [for example], or would this not be possible without being introduced manually? If not, how universal is it in nature, and how much of it is a tool. I have had an experience, with pathworking, where a friend and I did an experiment. We both , seperately, wrote pathworks starting at the moon card. A couple of days latter we compared them. They where both very similar and had one stunning connection. We both wrote of meeting a scarlet woman, which we both named shoma! [ a name i have seen no-where else]. The pathworks where basically done within a tree of life framework...and in this case that frameworks seems to have worked at a profound level( for me). This makes me suspect, that there is more to be gained in way of insight through hermetic & mystery schools than pop psychology.

jmd	01 Dec 2002
AmounrA brings up another question which has occupied many of us for numerous hours (well, some of us have had, at various times, this luxury :)):'If on another world, "aliens" had objects shaped like like spoons, but used them to "ping" things, and not for food transfer, would these still be spoons?. Is the 'spoon' the shape, or the function?'. In philosophical terms, we can ask whether the term 'spoon' is a rigid designator. Kripke has made an important contribution to this area - well worth reading! What are the essential characteristics of a spoon? Its material seems irrelevent, its shape secondary, but its function for a normally handed human being essential - itself determining its shape. In terms of AmounrA's suggestion, then, although the 'ping'-things may be used as spoons by us human beings, they remain solely 'ping'-things until their function changes.

Malachite	01 Dec 2002
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here, but when you bend a spoon, you can't eat ice-cream with it anymore...to misquote Tolkien, 'he who breaks a thing to see what it is made of has strayed from the path of wisdom'...I like my spoons useful.

Malachite	01 Dec 2002
ad hey...magic is the pop-psychology of the past. Just because something is more worldly in outlook, it doesn't mean it has to be a baser version. Love can be both the emotion of the soul, and a reaction between neurotransmitters in the brain. The difference in 'value' between the two is a concept that only humans apply. ;) well thats my obscure statement quota for the day!

Kiama	01 Dec 2002
LOL welcome back Malachite! ;) Kiama

Kiama	01 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA Would it be possible for this person to become 'enlightened', a magus, a kabbalist (for example). If the person meditated and visulised, would they still see the tree of life [for example] , or would this not be possible without being introduced manually? This is exactly the question I have been arguing with my Hermetic friend over! He doesn't reckon I can attain some form of enlightenment like he has, cuz I don't do Enochian rituals or fix myself to the Hermetic system. The fact that I have had what he calls 'Samadi' (Spelled incorrectly?) of my own free will without using any system but my own seems to matter nothing to him... :( Kiama

Laurel	02 Dec 2002
I know a Hermetic magician who claims to be violently opposed to the concept of charity; he hasn't worked in over two years, living off hand-outs from his parents. He wants to found his own Order; he's unable to see that his own attitudes result in his inability to work well in groups and that won't change by being Leader instead of Equal. I know a Hermetic magician who told me yesterday that she is sick of her girlfriend's psychodrama and cannot acknowledge that perhaps she herself made an error in judgement by pursuing a relationship with a girl she knew to be both anorexic and emotionally erratic. She cannot face the reasons why she is ultimately unhappy and how little her girlfriend has to do with it. You can call yourself a "Hermetic" or ~any~ title... you can practice Enochian or Goetia until the cows come home, but unless you are applying your magical changes in consciousness to the practical and really HARD work of changing -yourself- and -your own environment- than you're deluded to believe you are successful as a magician. Laurel

Laurel	02 Dec 2002
Postscript-- If you are able to transform your consciousness in ways that allows you to meaningfully change yourself and your environment, I would personally consider you a successful magician, regardless of how much or little Hermetic theory you know. Some of my best magical teachers have never even preformed the LBRP. Any road to transformation from an unhappy, unfulfilled person to a person that is generally happy and who's life is filled with meaning and content is probably a good one. Hermetic magic has a great "tool box" for getting there; so do a lot of other traditions. Laurel

The Enchanter	02 Dec 2002
I think I have got to the point where the object is not there. By the way I was doing this with a toothbrush that is not really there. I felt it become weak and flimsy but it didn'treally bend. Can someone help me out and tell me what to do after it's not there?

napaea	02 Dec 2002
just stepping in to say i'm glad this thread is here. i love the Matrix, and what it presents to be pondered. thanks for all the interesting info, thoughts, and references.

SlyR	02 Dec 2002
" According to my Hermetic friend, ritual magick is better than 'Pop Psychology' or mundane ways of achieving 'enlightenment' because it is quicker. " Quicker!? How is Hermetic Magick "Quick?" Tell your friend I'd love to know what he means by that, because I've been practicing for over four years and I'd like to know if I've been missing something all this time. Oh, and jmd: You are right in saying that there is a difference between ceremonial magick and pop psychology. Naturally, they're not the same. Just similar. Anyone who's taken the B.O.T.A.'s first few weeks of coursework will acknowledge the similarities.

Kiama	03 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by SlyR [bquicker!? how is hermetic magick "quick?" tell your friend i'd love to know what he means by that, because i've been practicing for over four years and i'd like to know if i've been missing something all this time. [/b] Cuz according to him, a certain ritual will just cause the inner change to happen immediately after being peformed, for instance, confronting your inner demon etc, the Abra Melin... Wheras with self-psychology you apparantly have to go through lots and lots and lots before any change takes place. He doesn't accept any of my mystical experiences or Samadhi experiences which I had without any form of ritual, at the tender age of 6. (They weren't spontaneous either: I chose to try to have them. Well, I started young eh? ;)) Grrrrrrrrr *Primal scream therapy* Kiama

Malachite	03 Dec 2002
His choice. If he wants to believe that he can change is inner self just by ritualising without actually working, then let him. Of all the people I know, you least of all need someone else's opinion to validate anything you do.

temperlyne	03 Dec 2002
We can not possibly know wether or not what we percieve is reality. We as humans are limited by our senses to percieve only a limited fraction of what could be reality. We lack senses that some animals have and so we can not fully grasp what the reality is like. What we think is the real world is just an illusion we created based on our senses, every creature has its own senses and its own version of reality; its own illusion. Outside our illusion everything is possible but it will remain unknown to us unless we create new ways of sensing things. The spoon does exist is our reality/illusion because we percieve of it with our senses, but for an animal who can only detect heat and motion it does not exist. Everything that can be percieved is real, at least in the mind of the perciever but is also a part of the true reality. True reality is composed of everything that is possible. I hope I made some sense.... I hate having to explain things like this in an other language than the one I'm used to...

Laurel	03 Dec 2002
Ditto to what Malachite said! We can't change the way idiots view themselves, the world and us. We can only remember they are idiots and bask in our experiences. You don't need him, and you shouldn't need us to validate everything you've experienced and accomplished. That said, I have always enjoyed your posts on spiritual (and other) matters and think you are an amazing person. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. As for your friend and his instant changes in consciousness, I'll repeat what I said before: unless he was the Will and Discipline to apply the momentum provided by those changes in consciousness to fufilling his goals and desires, unless he's walking the walk not just talking the talk, no amount of pentagram drawing and summoning spirits is going to make him a happier, healthier, wiser person. :P And no sane, productive magus from Levi and Papus to Crowley and Regardie to Franz Barton to Wang and the Ciceros has ever said Hermetic magic is ~easy~ or ~fast~. If your friend is treating it as such and dismissing psychotherapy because it "takes time", chances are he's just eating the frosting out of the bowl and never bothered to bake the cake. He just read some rituals and started preforming them without any real insight into why magicians use ritual as a tool. Laurel

AmounrA	03 Dec 2002
There’s a magickal truth, which is this -"magick meets you half way". If you go out /in whatever to meet 'it', it will start to meet you. It does not matter whether you are a hermetic magi, or into pop psychology. If you a dedicated and invest effort and imagination, call out, as it were, universe does listen, and will interact. You don't even have to be a good person; you could be a nasty corrupting type. [as long as you are aware that the 'force' coming down half way to meet you, will be of that nature itself] A 'magi' who solely reads hermetic texts is a boxed one; the 'magi' must be everywhere, exploring every angle...or a least being aware of its existence [i would not recommended exploring murder!]. I would say the best tool a 'magi'/spiritual seeker can have, is an open, well trained, well tested, well pushed Imagination. 1-magi-nation

jmd	03 Dec 2002
AmourA, if 'imagination' can be read as '1-magi-nation', does that mean that 'inspiration' can be 'in-psi-ration'? ... and what about 'intuition' - 'intu-it-I-on'? :) Earlier on, temperlyne posted 'We as humans are limited by our senses to perceive only a limited fraction of what could be reality'. That we have sensory limitations is certainly the case - but there is an important element missing in this description, which completes meaningfully what is given: the concepts applied by thinking upon the sensory experiences. Without these, and irrespective of what senses we may have, the world would not reveal itself meaningfully. Though it very likely may be that for the ant there is no discernable spoon due to its cognitive limitations does not indicate whether or not there is or is not a spoon. Epistemological questions (questions about our knowledge of things and our knowledge of their existence) are different to ontological ones (questions about their existential state).

The There is no Spoon. thread was originally posted on 14 Nov 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.