1
   

Is 'magic' now more important than science?

 
 
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2006 04:11 am
The philosopher, statesman and author "Francis Bacon" (1561-1626) dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning in the English world. His revaluation was to take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for "the use and benefit of men" and the relief of the human condition.

And Bacon's efforts helped form the beginning of 'empiricism' as it has been handed down through the Anglo world to the 'common man' in America.

It somehow seems strange to me that practical science, whose applications are "universal," had to be invented as a school of thought in history!

But I think that the requirement for the 'invention' and spread of modern science, was that the human "mind" did indeed have to be devalued or limited and those limitations constitute the epistemology of the modern age. For good or for ill, the modern, scientific age was constructed out of a strict denial of the more mystical elements in life. I say that because the mind does see real magical things, it perceives the inexplicable and the mystical and sees them from an early age.

I mean the type of magic that religion is always involved with. I don't mean only metaphysical origins or god but smaller everyday things that modern physics doesn't touch upon.

When Max Weber famously wrote about the "disenchantment of the world" he was saying that superstitions (and deep philosophical thinking?) were being replaced by empirical invention throughout the western world. And that this was a tragic event in the history of the world.

However, in our post-modern multicultural west, local tribes and local 'belief-systems' are obsessively and religiously protected by political correctness and thought crimes laws. So the situation has changed and now today science is always blamed for killing mother-earth and her concommitant superstitous tribalisms.

What I mean is that today it is the irrational, the mystical, the deep imagination, the fact-as-fiction, and the religious which now surpasses the empirical, the physical and the logical.

Ours is not a culture that believes in science anymore (money does not equate to empricism), but rather one that esteems the magical.

Oswald Spengler in "The Delcine of the West" wrote about modern Western politicians, saying that they were not rational actors but rather the "agents of financial interests." He goes on talking of the power of those politicians and the future:


Yet their power is not eternal. Blood, ethnic pride, cultural chauvinism, territorial instincts and natural aggressiveness, will soon assert themselves against the world of money, science, and technological prowess. An age of violent conflict is opening, and it is obvious an era of perpetual warfare has begun.
New Caesars with armies of fanatical devotees struggle for mastery. Meanwhile the mass of mankind looks on with growing bewilderment, apathy, or resignation, prepared to accept the fate that determined soldiers, terrorist movements, fearful police and militarised states impose.
But long before this comes about, political ideologies and parties will have lost their meaning. Life in a globalised world falls to a level of uniformity where local and national differences virtually cease to exist. The only places that matter will be a handful of gigantic "world cities"-New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Beijing. These will be what Hellenistic Alexandria and Imperial Rome were to the ancient world-vast assemblages of people all living on top of one another, a mob following anyone who keeps them amused.
The lives of the masses will be an empty rehearsal of dull tasks and brutal diversions-arenas and gladiators, gross spectacles of sensuality and sadism watched by drunken roaring crowds. Music will be similarly depraved. Intellectual activity becomes mechanized, practical, cold, and merely clever. The educated lose their feeling for language, and the same basic speech-a coarse argot filled with obscenity-is spoken by intellectuals and workers alike.


* * *

Then when every trace of cultural form and style has disappeared, a new primitivism begins to pervade all human activity. Even the feeling for scientific truth-which may for some time outlast the dissolution of culture-grows vague and uncertain. Superstitions thrive; men believe anything; their appetite for the mysterious and supernatural expands and flourishes. It becomes hard to tell fiction from fact or fact from fiction.
In vulgar credulity the common people try to escape the universal boredom of work in a mechanized and bureaucratised world. Then out of the desolation of city life arises a "second religiosity", a fusion of popular cults and dim memories of forgotten piety. In this way the uncomprehending masses seek to assuage their misery.

The future looms dark and cold and strange. It will require yet more and more magic to keep us warm and safe.

Resources:

Online Article:"Return of the Tribes" by Ralph Peters: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12616&R=ED9A394EF

Francis Bacon: http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bacon.htm#H2

Book: Spengler's Delcine of the West: http://www.amazon.com
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,600 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 07:14 am
@Pythagorean,
Who did more for humanity, Francis Bacon or his contemporary, William Shakespeare?

The trouble with science is the tendency to esteem that which is easy above that which is difficult, a scientific "truth" being that which is easiest to prove, but proved only by virtue of this or that religious belief cunningly disguised as an axiom.

The result is then that a lot of terribly small minds are encouraged to regard themselves as a good deal smarter than they really are, smart by virtue of their ignorance of human experience beyond their powers of reason.

"How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"
(Albert Einstein)


Francis Bacon was hardly so novel for instance with his hope for the relief of the human condition by rational means; 2000 years before him a practical method to relieve human suffering had already been proposed by the Buddha Gotama as an anitodote to the obvious futility of religious faith.

So is it now more important?

Le plus ca change....

-- RH
0 Replies
 
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 04:55 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
The philosopher, statesman and author "Francis Bacon" (1561-1626) dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning in the English world. His revaluation was to take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for "the use and benefit of men" and the relief of the human condition.

And Bacon's efforts helped form the beginning of 'empiricism' as it has been handed down through the Anglo world to the 'common man' in America.

It somehow seems strange to me that practical science, whose applications are "universal," had to be invented as a school of thought in history!

But I think that the requirement for the 'invention' and spread of modern science, was that the human "mind" did indeed have to be devalued or limited and those limitations constitute the epistemology of the modern age. For good or for ill, the modern, scientific age was constructed out of a strict denial of the more mystical elements in life. I say that because the mind does see real magical things, it perceives the inexplicable and the mystical and sees them from an early age.

I mean the type of magic that religion is always involved with. I don't mean only metaphysical origins or god but smaller everyday things that modern physics doesn't touch upon.

When Max Weber famously wrote about the "disenchantment of the world" he was saying that superstitions (and deep philosophical thinking?) were being replaced by empirical invention throughout the western world. And that this was a tragic event in the history of the world.

However, in our post-modern multicultural west, local tribes and local 'belief-systems' are obsessively and religiously protected by political correctness and thought crimes laws. So the situation has changed and now today science is always blamed for killing mother-earth and her concommitant superstitous tribalisms.

What I mean is that today it is the irrational, the mystical, the deep imagination, the fact-as-fiction, and the religious which now surpasses the empirical, the physical and the logical.

Ours is not a culture that believes in science anymore (money does not equate to empricism), but rather one that esteems the magical.

Oswald Spengler in "The Delcine of the West" wrote about modern Western politicians, saying that they were not rational actors but rather the "agents of financial interests." He goes on talking of the power of those politicians and the future:


Yet their power is not eternal. Blood, ethnic pride, cultural chauvinism, territorial instincts and natural aggressiveness, will soon assert themselves against the world of money, science, and technological prowess. An age of violent conflict is opening, and it is obvious an era of perpetual warfare has begun.
New Caesars with armies of fanatical devotees struggle for mastery. Meanwhile the mass of mankind looks on with growing bewilderment, apathy, or resignation, prepared to accept the fate that determined soldiers, terrorist movements, fearful police and militarised states impose.
But long before this comes about, political ideologies and parties will have lost their meaning. Life in a globalised world falls to a level of uniformity where local and national differences virtually cease to exist. The only places that matter will be a handful of gigantic "world cities"-New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Beijing. These will be what Hellenistic Alexandria and Imperial Rome were to the ancient world-vast assemblages of people all living on top of one another, a mob following anyone who keeps them amused.
The lives of the masses will be an empty rehearsal of dull tasks and brutal diversions-arenas and gladiators, gross spectacles of sensuality and sadism watched by drunken roaring crowds. Music will be similarly depraved. Intellectual activity becomes mechanized, practical, cold, and merely clever. The educated lose their feeling for language, and the same basic speech-a coarse argot filled with obscenity-is spoken by intellectuals and workers alike.


* * *

Then when every trace of cultural form and style has disappeared, a new primitivism begins to pervade all human activity. Even the feeling for scientific truth-which may for some time outlast the dissolution of culture-grows vague and uncertain. Superstitions thrive; men believe anything; their appetite for the mysterious and supernatural expands and flourishes. It becomes hard to tell fiction from fact or fact from fiction.
In vulgar credulity the common people try to escape the universal boredom of work in a mechanized and bureaucratised world. Then out of the desolation of city life arises a "second religiosity", a fusion of popular cults and dim memories of forgotten piety. In this way the uncomprehending masses seek to assuage their misery.

The future looms dark and cold and strange. It will require yet more and more magic to keep us warm and safe.

Resources:

Online Article:"Return of the Tribes" by Ralph Peters: PREVIEW: Return of the Tribes

Francis Bacon: Francis Bacon [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Book: Spengler's Delcine of the West: Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more


Magick IS a science. Magick is experiencial and applied metaphysics. Scientific empiricism attempts to "see it objectively", which I believe is impossible. It is impossible because consciousness (spirit, thought, mind) is the basis of all manifested reality.

Metaphysics is, to me, the unifying approach to all sciences, religions, schools of thought, etc.

All this means, (even in an academic definition) - a metaphysician is one who searches for the nature of reality.

"Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible. It seeks a description so basic, so essentially simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything, whether divine or human or anything else. It attempts to tell what anything must be like in order to be at all.

To call one a metaphysician in this traditional, philosophical sense indicates nothing more than his or her interest in attempting to discover what underlies everything. Old materialists, who said that there is nothing but matter in motion, and current naturalists, who say that everything is made of lifeless, non-experiencing energy, are just as much to be classified as metaphysicians as are idealists, who maintain that there is nothing but ideas, or mind, or spirit."

http://websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm

I believe it unfortunate that the word metaphysics is misunderstood by most people. It was misunderstood, even by me, until I joined this group. The words mysticism, occult, and magic/magick often get bad raps as well.

Electra Smile

XX
Electra phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 05:05 am
@Electra phil,
I just noticed that this thread was started under the philosophy of politics forum. I will include these articles in this thread, with the understanding that there are various things within them that I am NOT encouraging one to believe---such as there is life on the moon. Because I am not sure of such as statement, having never been there.

There are, however, several good points within them. And the articles were written by a gentleman who was a teacher of Caballa, so it has some application to this thread.

I apologize for the length of it, but I think it is a good read.

Common Ground Common Sense > Politics in the Light of Initiatic Science
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 11:07 am
@Pythagorean,
We discount science because it does not materially add to our existence. Every new dawn of scientific hope meets the dark night of human reality, that we are hateful spiteful creatures willing to destroy ourselves to hurt others. Whether it is grace or fate that saves us we are not bound to be improved by it. Who can measure such things? Who can know why the good perish while the bad survive? And true faith and prayers are rewarded. Two people caught on a snag in a flood both pray, and one is washed away. How can the saved one doubt his faith? We hear all the time about prayers answered but never know how many fall on deaf ears.

Science gives us new reasons to fear, and magic gives us good reason to hope. Our ability to produce has doubled many times int he last three hundred years. Does this mean that all lives are secure? All our technology adds to the number of millionaires and does not reduce, but adds to the percentage of poor. People have always had houses, but now our houses cost us years of unrelenting toil. For what are we made slaves? Indoor toilets, and carpet? Not having to share a room with cows and hogs and dogs through the thick of winter? Do we have things better and have no hope of them getting better still?
Heaven and hell are hope. Magic is hope. Religion is hope. The soul is hope. Saints and sinners are hope. God is hope. We could live with science if it offered us hope; but it is science and technology that make people fear to think, and if they dare to think, then to fear to speak. Modern society, because it does not work, but works only its own destruction is driving people into the fantasy world of spirits, Gods, prayers, and magic. The cure is for a new form of relationship to be found.
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:53 am
@Pythagorean,
Who can know why the good perish while the bad survive?

It is a tautology: Good and Bad are defined by those who say "good" when you let them walk all over you and "bad" otherwise, so there you have it, "good "to let you perish you and "bad" to survive.

It is not about Magic; it is about delusion; all irretreivably addicted to your own particularly preferred delusions, the alternative is too hard to take.

They call it "positive thinking", the willingness to prefer whatever it takes to maintain the requisite variety of make believe.

Rather confront them with the truth of their inadequacy and they hate with vengeanace while they call it compassion.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 05:56 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Who can know why the good perish while the bad survive?

It is a tautology: Good and Bad are defined by those who say "good" when you let them walk all over you and "bad" otherwise, so there you have it, "good "to let you perish you and "bad" to survive.

It is not about Magic; it is about delusion; all irretreivably addicted to your own particularly preferred delusions, the alternative is too hard to take.

They call it "positive thinking", the willingness to prefer whatever it takes to maintain the requisite variety of make believe.

Rather confront them with the truth of their inadequacy and they hate with vengeanace while they call it compassion.


I have to agree with you about them hating. To grasp the essentials of what is happening with religions, and to take a lesson from it, it is not necessary to confront anyone. There are many forms of relationship. Every form- idea- is a form of relationship. If people cling tot heir old time religion it only means that their new time political, social, and economic relationships are not working. People go to God for a specific reason. God gives them nothing, and they still take something away, whether we call that acceptence, or friendship and support. The past never works, and never did work. I would sooner carry an anvil across quicksand as count on God to do for me what is within my power to do for myself.

I am guessing you miss my point; which is: We accept the faith of our fathers on testimony, but the testimony of those who prayed and were washed away is missing. Hearing only from the survivors gives us a tilted view of spiritual power. In any event, people embrace religion, and even magic as something that used to work, which shows, like the existence of drug use, that people are socially unhappy and are looking for happiness as individuals and as groups.

Who is not trying to escape reality? Should we not see this great exit for what it is? Religion is different from all other forms. It is going back ward in time, and if it were examined it would be found wanting since it gives individuals power they would not merit in a healthy society. But religion has a social purpose of reinforcing common morality. All religions are little about God and much about our behavior toward each other. You don't have to buy the grocery store to own a can of beans. Take the good beans and leave rest.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:54 pm
@Fido,
The power to be washed away, to fail to survive,

:eek:

yes, that is the inescapable reality of deliberate weakness, a bad can of beans full of worms, a point not worth confronting.

Farewell.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 03:42 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The power to be washed away, to fail to survive,

:eek:

yes, that is the inescapable reality of deliberate weakness, a bad can of beans full of worms, a point not worth confronting.

Farewell.


Religion is a bad can of beans, but no one takes the whole can. It a smorgasborg, where is the spell check option. People pick and choose what they want to believe, but they want others to believe it all. Perhaps that is why word of mouth does not suffice and they must rely upon advertizing. If they were good for all their members they would have to turn away people. They do not. There is always a seat except for Christmas and Easter. Hell, they can have mine. I'll never wear it out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is 'magic' now more important than science?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 06:44:47