Do you acknowledge different world views?

[Nagaram]

I am currently obsessed with perspective and how different perspectives change interpretations of the world.

In our context I'm mostly concerned with the differences between a disenchanted world view and an enchanted one. The disenchanted people being folks who don't accept anything that isn't explainable with science and the enchanted folks being the ones who do accept there's something more in the world that can only be experienced.

I'm interested because I feel as though I'm right in the middle of those two opposed views. I don't really believe in anything metaphysical really but I believe in it's psychological power.

But I'm curious if other people's world views allow for acknowledgement of different even opposing world views? I'm curious because quite frequently on here I see people make wild theological/metaphysical claims as is if it's an obvious truth, and I can see the use in a multi-discipline forum like this in just making that statement and if someone wants to know more they will ask. However, I'm curious if that's simply part of people's beliefs or not. Are world views that don't follow your system of beliefs valid in your eyes or are they just a misinterpretation of what's happening? How do you approach that?

 

[jbyer]

Science only covers what has been discovered so far, what allows for magic is the simulation hypothesis. That hasn't been proven, but several attempts have been made. Once you realize that we are in a simulation similar to one that can be generated by a computer, magic becomes scientifically sound.

 

[ZanySpirtist]

For me, magick is a bit of a symbolic bridge between the explainable, measurable and objective and the inexplicable and subjective perspective.

Thus, I by extension accept the existence of different worldviews. I love the psychonalytical concept of "intersubjectivity" - the interaction between the different subjective experiences each of us have. That is why - because magick is highly subjective - there are so many differing opinions and views, but they're all great in their own regard.

 

[Nagaram]

Science only covers what has been discovered so far, what allows for magic is the simulation hypothesis. That hasn't been proven, but several attempts have been made. Once you realize that we are in a simulation similar to one that can be generated by a computer, magic becomes scientifically sound.

I think that's quite a jump in logic. Do you have any issues with people who don't believe the world is a simulation?

Post automatically merged: Today at 1:03 AM

For me, magick is a bit of a symbolic bridge between the explainable, measurable and objective and the inexplicable and subjective perspective.

Thus, I by extension accept the existence of different worldviews. I love the psychonalytical concept of "intersubjectivity" - the interaction between the different subjective experiences each of us have. That is why - because magick is highly subjective - there are so many differing opinions and views, but they're all great in their own regard.

This is honestly why I fell in love with Esotericism/Magick as a concept. The synthesis of Theology, Philosophy, and Science.

 

[jbyer]

Not really, it is for sure a simulation though. Which is why we have wide spread stuff like mind control going on. Once you realize we are in a simulation magic like telekinesis becomes possible, but you have to work with the simulation AIs. They do mostly mind control.

 

[HoldAll]

I'm a born sceptic and don't have any bone to pick with science at all. I don't think that scientists have this anti-occult agenda where they systematically try to eradicate any vestige of superstition in the world. If they call something 'pseudo-science', it is because such occult claims encroach upon their territory, and then they'd declare, "Nope, can't happen because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics" – what else is left for them say when they're only doing their job and speak as experts operating within their own paradigm? Conflicts mostly arise whenever esotericists borrow a term from hard science like 'energy' or 'force field', give it a different meaning and are subsequenty miffed if scientist deny them recognition for such metaphysically altered concepts, and oh boy, certain authors crave mainstream science acceptance like so many junkies.

'Energy' is a case in point: I'm currently working on a post for my forum journal where I try to create a bridge between physics and metaphysics (it'll probably never see the light of day because it's such a knotty subject). In the course of my research, I asked Google AI about the "All is energy" misconception (you know, the one about the misattributed Einstein quote), and it replied: Energy is a property, not a thing: Energy is a measurable property of physical systems (like kinetic or potential energy), not an independent, floating entity. I was stunned. After all, this is not how we use the 'energy' here! In any occult context, energies are living forces capable of existing separately from gross matter and are intelligent enough to cause complex changes in the real, a huge difference. So if you talk to scientists about 'occult energies', they have no other option than replying "Nonsense, it doesn't work that way!" Perhaps one day scientists will discover how certain paranormal phenomena operate but in such a case, you can be sure that they won't use 'energy' to explain them because that term is already taken, and in contrast to metaphysics, science relies on very precise terminology and tolerates no linguistic ambiguities. They'll coin a new word instead, making us look like pioneers or credulous fools in the process, depending.

The Max Weber theory about the disenchanted modern world is becoming more and more called into question by contemporary scholars. Science hasn't robbed us of myth – myth is still very much alive because of the emotional attachments we harbour. Myths are still being used and exploited, by agents ranging from advertising agencies to politicians. Cold hard rationalism hasn't won out, not by a long chalk. Of course humans are capable of logical thinking but it's the emotions that decide whether an issue is worth pondering about; then we'd intuitively form a premisse and only accept results that we subjectivey feel make sense or that we like.

I for one reserve the right to call bullshit on any given occult subject or method, believe in some others, withhold judgement on this doctrine, prefer to rely on mainstream science for that prediction, etc. Nobody can force me to swallow the occult worldview whole. At times I even feel a bit overwhelmed by the enchanted world and welcome the opportunity of interacting with the (seemingly) disenchanted one as an antidote – grounding, in a word.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Science only covers what has been discovered so far, what allows for magic is the simulation hypothesis. That hasn't been proven, but several attempts have been made. Once you realize that we are in a simulation similar to one that can be generated by a computer, magic becomes scientifically sound.

Magic can be scientifically sound without having to resort to the simulation idea. But then you have to get to the hard work to explain it, rather than just waving your hands and saying "a simulation did it and ran away". Humans need metaphors to understand stuff, and 'big computer' is only the latest in a long line of metaphors. An interesting idea is that one of the reasons that we don't understand consciousness is that we don't have a decent metaphor for it

I was at a conference where a guy actually stood up and told us that the 'big computer' that runs the simulation is in Plato's Cave. Gosh, I wondered where they left it!

I'm pretty much in agreement with @HoldAll 's post, and also, this amused me:

and then they'd declare, "Nope, can't happen because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics"

because as far as I can tell, the details of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is part of how magic does work

The last thing I've seen a few times. which boils my piss, is people waving a strawman of what they think a scientist or an occultist is like and then 'demolishing' that strawman, a process that satisfies only the most shallow.

Post automatically merged: Today at 11:12 AM

And to answer the question in the title: I acknowledge other experiences. You summoned Paimon and had a chat with him? Ok, cool. I won't pretend I have any idea what that's like, but I'm not going to say 'no you didn't'. The way people talk about experiences gives an insight into the experience; even if (ghod forbid) someone try and bullshit us about what happened. A real experience, well, sounds real. 'Versimilitude' is a great word.

Post automatically merged: Today at 11:16 AM

For me, magick is a bit of a symbolic bridge between the explainable, measurable and objective and the inexplicable and subjective perspective.

Thus, I by extension accept the existence of different worldviews. I love the psychonalytical concept of "intersubjectivity" - the interaction between the different subjective experiences each of us have. That is why - because magick is highly subjective - there are so many differing opinions and views, but they're all great in their own regard.

I would go further, and say that magic depends on the nature of subjectivity. The fact that wildly different magical 'systems' can have the same amount of success should be a big clue that it's something about the way we experience things that's part of the solution.