Introduction
All practices falling under the umbrella of "magic" share a single core commonality, regardless of their cosmological framing or purported mechanisms of action- conscious direction of the verifiable, experienced state of reality. Another incidental shared aspect is that the effectiveness of a magical act hinges on confidence. Depending on the system in question and how it is conceptualized, this confidence could be that of the practitioner, or a compound of all observers cognizant of its effects.
What naturally follows is that the possibilities of a magical act are determined jointly by what the underlying theoretical framework affords as possible, and the practitioner's conviction in the reality of said framework. Why this is will also be explored, but for now, let's derive the logical conclusions of this dynamic:
1. Systems with limited mechanisms and scopes of action lead to a hard stopping-point in what can be achieved.
2. Systems which rely on blind faith limit their application to the type of person capable of exercising it, or those exposed to verifiable, undeniable effects.
From these two points, we can discount a vast array of magical theories and practices. The ideal magic-enabling theory is one which is consistent and coherent with observed reality and its mechanisms, one which places no absolute limits on the scope of effect, and one which logically implies the possibility of effect without prior direct exposure to said effect.
What does this leave us with? Our ideal system will be metaphysical in nature (it explains the root causes of observed physical behaviors), personally verifiable from its core propositions to its ultimate conclusions, and centered around iterative trial, confirmation, and integration of progressively disruptive effects (compared to the now-common hard materialist model of reality).
Approach
This thread will target a modern Western, Aryan demographic. We'll be starting from the current cultural premise of a deterministic, fundamentally material world, and logically deriving our premise from the inconsistencies and limitations of this model, combined with analysis of personal experience. Once the basis is laid out, it will be completed with a more involved earlier writing. The racial background implies analytical, reductionist thinking, which we'll leverage to create a theoretical framework of maximal certainty. Practical exercises will be omitted. After reviewing an earlier thread from 2020 that I intended to redact, I decided it stands well enough on its own merits, and me cringing every time I see it passed around isn't a good enough reason to re-word essentially the same contents in a slightly less embarrassing language.
Metaphysical premise
The universe is commonly presented as having an absolute starting point, the Big Bang. Time and space are emergent phenomena driven by the emergence of discrete variations in the underlying fabric of reality (currently a subject of theoretical speculation and research) via the effects of relativity. Prior to this initial differentiation, physical reality was a cohesive, undifferentiated unit without progression or change. Therefore, time and space did not exist prior to the starting point.
Given that a change occurred in something static and incapable of change through its own mechanisms, the occurrence of differentiation and introduction of instability logically requires an external mechanism, operating outside of causality.
Causality is the law of a cause preceding any effect. Something operating outside of causality implicitly disobeys this rule. It may exist without a cause, or more accurately, a cause cannot exist, as an A->B relationship simply does not hold in this context.
Identity of the conscious self
Recall your earliest memory. You can most likely do this without issue. Recall past that. Logically, you must have held earlier memories at that point. You might be able to piece together a vague amalgam of shapes and sounds, based on what you know must have happened, however this reconstruction isn't something you authoritatively experienced. Your current conscious existence continues in spite of the experimental gap. It is entirely possible to lose all your memories, and even gain ones which logically could not have happened. Memory is tangential, and only provides a context for your current operating mode.
Try to recall the point at which you began existing. You cannot. In absence of an absolute starting point, you may conflate your earliest memory with it. However, at that point, you already existed. Your existence is independent of context and differentiation. If you can exist without context, in an atomic state in which the only defined state is your existence, i.e. without external points of contrast, then you exist outside causal progression, and the concept of a "cause" cannot be applied.
Something outside authoritative space and time cannot have a cause. Likewise, it cannot have an end. It does not rely on contributing factors for its being.
Existence
Let us consider being in itself. If something can be defined solely through its existence, then existence is a function in itself. "What is it? It is. What does it do? It exists." As such, being is both a qualifier and an active function. Qualifiers, however, are generated by and only relevant to external observers. Something which exists in an atomic state has no observers. The action of being is all that remains.
Mind and Consciousness
Existence is a voluntary act. 'I' isn't a concept, a reference, or a description, it is an assertion. I am. An assertion, or statement, always implies it's counter-statement, and likewise 'I' implies a 'not-I.' The Self is defined against that which is not the Self. This relation of distinction, now being extant, is an entity in itself. The I, in turn, defines itself against it as well. With each new distinction, with each new separation, a new concept-entity is formed. This sequence of separations, being causal and progressive in nature, is the essence of Time. The various degrees of interrelation and linkage between concepts (all being connected to some degree), forms the essence of Space.
Concepts at this level are pure syntax and lack any semantics. They are logical points without any inherent meaning, existing by virtue of existing, created by the assertion of the Self as Self.
This avalanche of atomic entities, though, begins to form patterns of progression, localized clusters of definition, and start behaving like a wave-form. Constructive and destructive interference creates harmonic constants, which are the second order of concept-entities, better called meta-concepts, and in their simplest form define the basis for mathematics. Still at this level are found primitive autonomous entities animated by structured and formulaic patterns of distinction. These would be the archetypal gods or archons of tradition. Consciousness here is still nothing like the kind we are familiar with, but we're getting closer.
This fractal pattern of separation-manifestation has now given rise to an emergent kind of semantics, meta-concepts with a vague barely extant meaning created by the vast volume of group-distinctions. As the process continues, these concept-entities crystalize into objects of increasingly defined meaning. This applies equally to 'static' concepts or ideas, and autonomous entities (although this distinction is a superficial and mostly false one).
With the continued solidification of ideas, comes solidification of space, as definition is the same thing as distinction. A strange kind of non-local space, but where separation of things is more and more clearly observed.
The process of distinction, although causal and sequential, isn't linear, with "threads" of manifestation occurring simultaneously, out of order, sometimes in stark contradiction of what should have already been defined. Individual and local time-progressions become defined and the concepts themselves gain definition, with distinct threads often linking and splitting apart at seemingly arbitrary points. Here we see timelines, and get one step closer to our own experience of time.
At some point in this endless process of definition, we arrive at a reality much distinct from the original state of being, pure assertion of the I, and the first separation. Things have become so crystalized, so distinct, so defined, that there are billions of individual sub-entities defining their overarching Form with microscopic definition. The local time of various concept-clusters has taken an aspect of predictability. Autonomous conscious entities have a nearly infinite measure of meaning. And here we find one of them, grasping an automated computing device, reading words that have manifested a million times in just as many realities. Here we have you.
The conscious being, as such, is an endlessly embellished version of a hierarchy of archetypal forms and beings, drawing substance and definition from an infinity of interrelated objects at all levels of reality, defined by and identified with ideas given almost concrete form. And yet, what is truly the Self and conscious is that Self-asserting force, which seeks to define itself against everything else. 'I' am that which remains once all else is removed.
I am that I am.
I couldn't digest the third post, might have to read it again when I can focus better. The rest was excellently written.
ssa Wrote:All practices falling under the umbrella of "magic" share a single core commonality, regardless of their cosmological framing or purported mechanisms of action- conscious direction of the verifiable, experienced state of reality.
I think this is the most key distinction to make, we must admit that magic can "work" in this particular sense. Charlatans of all sorts are unwilling to reveal the strict limitations of their magic. They prefer to leave the audience to assume that because they experienced some real psychological or social effect, other false claims about magic influencing material reality must also be true. Pointing out exactly where the boundary lies can help to dispel the more limited illusions.
ssa Wrote:Another incidental shared aspect is that the effectiveness of a magical act hinges on confidence. Depending on the system in question and how it is conceptualized, this confidence could be that of the practitioner, or a compound of all observers cognizant of its effects.
Continuing on this thought, lesser magic abuses this confidence/faith to deceive, but some aspects of perception, particularly those belonging to social or psychological reality (e.g. social hierarchy, self-esteem) do not have much objective material grounding, so it may not be accurate to describe manipulating them as "deception", since these concepts were illusory to begin with.
Your definition also leaves room to (accurately, in my view) characterize many mundane practices as magical. Marriage is a magic ritual. Cryptocurrency speculation is a collective, decentralized confidence trick ("this digital asset represents economic value"), and in a less blatant way fiat and commodity money are too. Stage magic is about as privileged as a magic to the typical example of Satanic animal sacrifice rituals. The most powerful and ubiquitous magics are what libtards disparagingly call "social constructs" in an attempt to dispel them, although these have often actually evolved in sync with our biology, so are based in material reality to varying extents. No amount of nihilism can convince the average person to walk down a busy street in the nude, even if it's a hot day.
The inherent limitations of magic help to explain why communities explicitly themed around magic have a tendency to become sex cults. Manipulating others into sexually worshipping you is one of the few practical use cases where magic actually "works", so it's expected that people will gravitate to this after learning that rituals to summon succubi or sports cars do not work at all. Social communities in general are usually performing magic unconsciously, they naturally develop rituals and culture.
ssa Wrote:This thread will target a modern Western, Aryan demographic. We'll be starting from the current cultural premise of a deterministic, fundamentally material world, and logically deriving our premise from the inconsistencies and limitations of this model, combined with analysis of personal experience. Once the basis is laid out, it will be completed with a more involved earlier writing.
It seems your thread is not finished, but I am very interested to hear more about how you might reconcile magic with physicalism and put this to some practical purpose. Empirical science is great at explaining a lot of facts about our world, but is in my opinion very poor at explaining psychological and social phenomena (usually the best they can do is a survey, which is awful). On the other hand, supernatural metaphysical frameworks tend to lack empirical grounding and are prone to making things up, but also often encode folk wisdom that can not be easily understood or proven without faith. I would like to bridge between these two ways of thinking. I also would like to know if an "honest" and self-aware magic system that is wholly upfront and transparent about how it works is even possible, or if magic can only function through the creation of illusions and/or manipulation of existing illusions.
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:Charlatans of all sorts are unwilling to reveal the strict limitations of their magic. They prefer to leave the audience to assume that because they experienced some real psychological or social effect, other false claims about magic influencing material reality must also be true. Pointing out exactly where the boundary lies can help to dispel the more limited illusions.
This assumes there
is an objective material reality that's distinct from its experienced impressions. Something something tree forest fall hear. Pointing out where the boundary lies
is important, in the sense of establishing that there
is no boundary. There is no separation between forms and images, to use platonic terminology. Forms are in constant dynamic progression themselves, and images are emergent phenomena which arise through the capture and representation of a limited context in self-perpetuating ideatic structures (conscious minds). The perception of a stable physical reality arises through a consensus of experience, perceptual agreements on what the external context
is. The illusion is real until proven otherwise.
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:Your definition also leaves room to (accurately, in my view) characterize many mundane practices as magical. Marriage is a magic ritual. Cryptocurrency speculation is a collective, decentralized confidence trick ("this digital asset represents economic value"), and in a less blatant way fiat and commodity money are too. Stage magic is about as privileged as a magic to the typical example of Satanic animal sacrifice rituals. The most powerful and ubiquitous magics are what libtards disparagingly call "social constructs" in an attempt to dispel them, although these have often actually evolved in sync with our biology, so are based in material reality to varying extents. No amount of nihilism can convince the average person to walk down a busy street in the nude, even if it's a hot day.
This is pretty much all correct, and one of the easier (and more important) areas to influence and control. It's why meme magic has been so effective, despite the vast majority of those engaging in it only ascribing the magical label in jest. The very nature of an experienced scenario can be changed by simply shifting the way it's framed. Christians are entirely justified in seething about the sanctity of marriage, and other ritualized civic matters. The way
they would frame it is inherently destructive, but that should be taken for granted in a spiritual framework centered around subservience and sublimation of the will.
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:Manipulating others into sexually worshipping you is one of the few practical use cases where magic actually "works", so it's expected that people will gravitate to this after learning that rituals to summon succubi or sports cars do not work at all
You
can summon succubi and sports cars. The reason people want to is also the reason low-tier cults devolve into degenerate chemsex. But yeah, manipulating minds is a lot easier than enacting grand changes. It doesn't have to be one or the other, either. You do your silly ritual to get a sports car, and after a while nothing happens. So instead you set to work fooling retards into giving you money, and buy the sports car yourself. Congrats, the ritual worked. The path of least resistance applies most of the time.
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:It seems your thread is not finished, but I am very interested to hear more about how you might reconcile magic with physicalism and put this to some practical purpose. Empirical science is great at explaining a lot of facts about our world, but is in my opinion very poor at explaining psychological and social phenomena (usually the best they can do is a survey, which is awful). On the other hand, supernatural metaphysical frameworks tend to lack empirical grounding and are prone to making things up, but also often encode folk wisdom that can not be easily understood or proven without faith. I would like to bridge between these two ways of thinking. I also would like to know if an "honest" and self-aware magic system that is wholly upfront and transparent about how it works is even possible, or if magic can only function through the creation of illusions and/or manipulation of existing illusions.
The physical world is an emergent phenomenon, as a structured representation of essentially meaningless complexes of information. Empirical science is in itself a system of magic, gradually pushing forward the boundary of what is possible through evolving theories of reality which can be subscribed to with high confidence by its practitioners.
The system of magic you're thinking about is knowledge about the core mechanisms of reality. That's what I'm describing here, and you're correct- it
is incomplete. I started writing this thread as a revision to an earlier system of exercises I wrote, providing a comprehensive theoretical backing. Mid-way through revising that text, however, I realized it's self-complete and un-editable. Everything I'm writing here becomes implicit as one progresses through the latter steps, and only the core information of
how to move forward is laid out, with no regard for the potential for catastrophic psychological damage. That's probably why it's gained some popularity, but I'm not happy with it. I'll develop this thread on its own instead, it should make for a more solid resource overall.
On the point of creation/manipulation of illusions, the key take-away is that it's all in your head. It's all an illusion of your own making, and you can alter this illusion to create immediate, reproductible, and verifiable "physical" change. This specifically is a big topic that's entirely missing from the work I intended to revise, and understanding
why you can move stuff with your mind is central to dispelling the preconceptions that will get in your way.
"Reality" means "the operation of material and effective causation". Asking if reality is "true" is pointless. Does material and effective causation work? Yes, and our perception is pretty good at accurately modeling it. We know that because we can observe the insane, for whom modeling of cause and effect have broken down, and our predictions for the insane are more accurate than the predictions of the insane for themselves.
Is it possible that the will alone can alter material causation? In my anecdotal experience the answer is yes. But "magic" is much less potent than doing things yourself with your own body. Sitting around and thinking is much less effective than the will using the proper tools it was provided.
ssa Wrote:This thread will target a modern Western, Aryan demographic. We'll be starting from the current cultural premise of a deterministic, fundamentally material world, and logically deriving our premise from the inconsistencies and limitations of this model, combined with analysis of personal experience. Once the basis is laid out, it will be completed with a more involved earlier writing. The racial background implies analytical, reductionist thinking, which we'll leverage to create a theoretical framework of maximal certainty. Practical exercises will be omitted. After reviewing an earlier thread from 2020 that I intended to redact, I decided it stands well enough on its own merits, and me cringing every time I see it passed around isn't a good enough reason to re-word essentially the same contents in a slightly less embarrassing language.
If you believe in magic, why bother starting from this point? This is like Christians who base the way they think about their own religion on apologetics, though in this case the consequences are far worse.
https://en.kalitribune.com/without-a-cau...city-pt-1/
https://en.kalitribune.com/without-a-cau...city-pt-2/