Power of Magick?

[I, Brian]

Sound like interesting studies, Bill - especially the second. Would you possibly be able to suggest a cite for this?

As for EM phenomenon - certainly, I'm aware that I'm pushing the issue beyond its means in my general thinking. However, the electromagnetic fields prodiced by living tissue is such an utterly under-rated phenomenon - you have to go towards Kirlian Photography for any sense of "serious" research. Aside from that, seem entirely ignored by mainstream science.

I would still make an argument that the "spirit" body of Vajradhara's post - and most related metaphors - are likely sourced through the experience of EM fields. It's hard to explain it all here, though, because I make the effort to try and explain that in my fiction writing. And not to mention that I apply it way beyond this single area and into other notions.

I know I over-state the case for EM fields, so I wonder how the subject would tie in with QED? After all, charge and spin are two of the fundamentals of Quantum Physics - and the basis for electromagnetism. So where is the cross-over point? Pondering aloud there.

Still, at least I haven't entirely abandoned spiritual metaphors - I should maybe post up a chapter where I introduce the concept. Not enough time tonight.

And as an addendum - EM fields are theoretically infinite, as are all fields. That means that every single EM field in the universe can theoretically be connected to one another. Hopefully I don;t need to explain the implications for that. Despite reservations, I do see a real argument for magic having "unseen" effects through this aspect.

However, as someone who has always walked with a sense of "destiny" and therefore quite easily accepts a concept of an over-riding Divine Will, I find the notion of "Free Will" difficult to approach. As Magick requires it, it therefore makes little sense to myself as a psychological process. I'm happy to keep an open mind on it, though - the wholoe Free Will issue is one I am not yet properly resolved upon.

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

As for EM phenomenon - certainly, I'm aware that I'm pushing the issue beyond its means in my general thinking. However, the electromagnetic fields prodiced by living tissue is such an utterly under-rated phenomenon - you have to go towards Kirlian Photography for any sense of "serious" research. Aside from that, seem entirely ignored by mainstream science.

I can provide one scientific source which debunks Kirlian photography as anything like proof of psychic phenomena: "A Study of the Kirlian Effect" by Arleen J. Watkins and William S. Bickel in the book "The Hundredth Monkey" edited by Kendrick Frazier (Prometheus Books: 1991.)

Kirlian photos are recording electromagnetic phenomena, but the variations have more to do with whether the object touching the plate is damp or dry rather than anything related to emotions (although being nervous can certainly give you sweaty hands.) They get just as impressive results from any object known to conduct electricity when compared with Kirlian photos of human hands, plants, etc.

[Edited to correct a typo in a name.]

[I, Brian]

That's why I used "quotation marks" for "serious".

The intention was not to say that Kirlian Photography illustrated "psychic phenomena", as much as that it simply showed the expression of EM fields on various test objects.

I guarrantee to you all that the electromagnetic field of the living body will provide astounding insights into biochemistry in future research. To ignore it is like to study the workings of all electrical items - but without taking into account their electrical and magnetic properties, which is a little ridiculous.

You can be assured that even localised EM effects in the human body will have a far reaching influence over a whole range of biochemical reactions, not least with regards to our massive variety of protein complexes, and their reactions. After all, proteins - not to mention other molecular groups - are themselves slighty charged. The whole field of bio-electromagnetism is simply waiting to be acknowledged as a major study area in its own right. Expect some surprises when it is.

[The Fool]

Hm, okay, let's back on topic - I'm derailing my own thread here.

When I read around the subject of Magick many years ago, my understanding of it was that it was always - almost implicitly - a subjective process. The ritual itself as a focus of the exploration of the inner self,

Bill's comment about the reply from his son-in-law I regard as especially pertinent here - the idea of binding personal demons seems far far more sensical than the notion of communicating with real Chaldean constructs, re-interpreted through Judaism and then English on top (presuming a Chaldean origin for Qabbalah, which is effectively the major root of Western Magick - yes?).

In which case, for those who claim to have an effect on Objective Reality, what is it they actually claim to be able to affect?

I'm not trying to be flippant here, btw - I'm a little rushed, but I'm trying to make an honest inquiry about a perception I understand little about.

I've read many many pagans claim to have an effect on "the real world", but it's hard to equate this as anything different from "prayer" - and as Atheists have long scoffed, no Christian has yet moved any physical mountains using faith and prayer alone.

Or is such a comment even a diversion? Is it generally accepted here that religious and personal ritual systems (ie, Christian Mass and Drawing a Circle) are effectively variant forms of Ritual Magic? Does that change any consideration of an answer for this issue?

[brucegdc]

The problem with trying to nail down the effect on "Objective Reality" (and the discussion on whether it exists is elsewhere) is that it's hard to say when the probability of an event or sequence occurring is low enough that it's "caused" by the activity. Predicting it in advance could just be recognition that the odds aren't what they seem, or , to steal from Bill "Just precognition".

In my case, the 'provable' effects tend to be around electronic devices - my MP3 player is somewhat less random when I want to hear a certain song and actively put energy into wanting to hear it - it tends to show up in the next two or three random plays (when it's got 4500 songs on it, its an interesting coincidence.... maybe).

I think that all of them have the same effect - whether you see yourself as working the change directly through will, or indirectly through intermediaries (deity, demons, daemons, angels, whatever) - it is the focussed application of will that comes to an outcome.

As for the "free will" versus "Destiny" argument - I tend to think of it in a macro/micro sense - somewhat like atoms & electron positions. From a macro sense, we know where those electrons are (my fingers do hit the keys). From a micro sense, what orbital they're in, and their exact position is effectively random and uncontrolled. Similarly with Destiny - I think the general direction (the stream in other discussions on this) is pretty set at a macro level - even if some of us fight upstream/crossstream/accelerate downstream, but the local events are not fixed & are subject to control by our will. Hence Magic and Prayer can work.

[WHKeith]

Sure, Brian. The information came from “The Field” by Lynne McTaggart, Harper Collins, New York, NY. 2002. pp. 154 – 156; and from “Physics of the Soul,” by Amit Goswami, Hampton Roads Publishing, Charlottesville, VA. 2001. pp. 35 – 40. The second experiment is described in Goswami’s book in some detail; it is also referred to in McTaggart’s work, but I can’t find the page number at the moment. And, in fact, when writing that post, I copied and pasted a chunk from my current book, so I suppose I could cite ME!

I agree that EM phenomenon are grossly underrated in studies of human physiology. I also agree that EM fields theoretically have no end and extend throughout the universe. However, classical physics now sees all energy exchanges in terms of particle transmissions (with the possible exception of gravity, which is a bending of space-time, but even there it’s possible to describe effects in terms of “gravitons.”) Such particle transmissions are limited by the speed of light. The key factor in long-distance EM effects is, of course, the inverse-square law, with EM fields becoming rapidly so weak that any effect they have on a target is completely swamped by nearer, stronger fields.

The recent QED experiments suggest that distance is NOT a factor, nor is shielding. Some even suggest that the speed of light is not a factor (I believe that was demonstrated by the Italian proof of Bell’s Theorem as few years ago.) Quantum nonlocality seems to be the only way to account for this.

Re. Kirlian photography, I’m not familiar with Watkins/Bickel’s book, Bruce, but I’ve heard this argument elsewhere. I do NOT believe Kirlian photography represents the aura or psychic potential, necessarily, but it seems to be more than a function of skin conductivity. I’ve seen Kirlian photographs of a cut leaf and—I believe it was a salamander that was missing a tail. In both cases, the missing part was clearly outlined in light. This appears to be a common observation with Kirlian technique and is not explainable by moisture on the subject. Other studies show intense bursts of energy from a healer’s hands and fingers when he exerts his will. Now, I concede that those moments could include an increase in moisture on the skin—maybe. (I notice nothing of the sort when giving Reiki, but perhaps the effect is vanishingly small subjectively.) Another study of the healing phenomenon—again, this is the McTaggart book—put healers inside a faraday cage with sensors on the subject and on the wall. The recordings demonstrated that bursts of electricity—sometimes over 60 volts—were emitted by the healers’ bodies while they were giving treatments. These bursts did not correlate with any movements or special efforts, but did appear related to their mental focus during the session. My guess is that the Kirlian photographs, in this instance, are recording a genuine increase in electrical potential or current NOT associated with skin conductivity or other background test conditions. At the very least, sweaty hands are not the sole factor here.

And, finally, to get back on The Fool’s topic. There is a genuine danger in the redefinition of terms to conform with the perception of objective reality. By redefining the answer to a question, we risk losing track of the original question. For example—in the history of alchemy, the original stated purpose was to transform base metal to gold. Along the way, this was redefined as meaning a quest to transform the alchemist himself. Eventually, today, the redefinition stated that alchemists were only interested in transforming themselves psychologically, and that the lead-to-gold bit was purely to enlist the financial support of kings and princes.

There’s a lot of truth in that. Modern alchemy, certainly, focuses on psychological transformation, using various terms and processes derived from Medieval writings as metaphor. But we shouldn’t forget that, on an objective historical basis, the alchemists WERE, for the most part, trying to turn lead into gold!
A number of recent authors have tried to state that, similarly, all magic is aimed not at effecting objective change in reality, but in psychologically inducing subjective change or in effecting personal psychological and emotional transformation.

Poppycock. Most magical systems of which I have any knowledge do emphasize the need for first effecting transformation within the magician, true, in order to make the magician a clear channel and to determine his “true will,” to use Crowley’s term. But the effects they seek—promoting prosperity or bringing in more money, healing, changing the weather . . . these are primarily objective physical effects. True, they can have psychological aspects. By increasing my confidence I can subliminally affect other people, create an air of prosperity, and thereby create more opportunities to make more money. But . . . what of the various studies at hospitals that demonstrate that magical healing practices, prayer, distant healing, and other improbabilities have tremendous, demonstrable, and measurable effect? In most such studies, the patients and the attending physicians and nurses were not aware they were part of an experiment, so psychological factors could be ruled out. And yet the “treated” subjects time after time showed fewer post-op infections, shorter recovery time, less use of pain medication, fewer return visits to the hospital, fewer doctor visits, less time on ventilators, and a greater degree of subjective feelings of health and well-being when compared with control groups.

You’re right. There IS no difference between the effects of pagan practices and prayer. They both work, and they’ve both been experimentally verified! A number of studies have been conducted purely with Christians and the physical effect of prayer. Others have emphasized New Age techniques, or a mix of the two. No difference!

As to the part about moving mountains . . . well, magical effects work through natural processes. Answered prayer and answered magical ritual, more times than not, manifest themselves through what appears to be coincidence. There also seem to be several governing laws of an almost physical nature at work. The degree that a magical outcome is successful seems to depend:

• On the amount of energy expended [which includes the skill, focus, desire, belief, and number of the magician(s).]
• On the time allowed for the outcome to be manifested.

In other words, the better-trained and focused you are magically, the less time it takes to effect a given physical outcome. The less trained and focused, the more time required. The bigger the effect in physical terms, the more time AND effort is required.

I’ve never known anyone to move a mountain magically. I HAVE known people who moved small objects through focused will and intent. I would not say that it was impossible for a magician (or for prayer) to move a mountain given sufficient power, skill, and time.

Of course, I’d also have to wonder—and this could be seen as ducking the issue—why I needed to move a mountain in the first place. Simply to prove that it can be done doesn’t seem like reason enough to expend that much effort! Creating physical magical effects is extraordinarily draining. I hate to think of what shape I’d be in if I DID manage to move one!

It may be fair to say--albeit a bit simplistically--that to move a mountain with magic would require the same energy as it would to move it with dynamite and bulldozers. I say "simplistic" because there are so many twisty angles to the question. For example . . . if I try to move a mountain with magic, maybe I just up and levitate it . . . yeah, right . . . but maybe, too, the energy I exert somehow influences a decision made in a corporate boardroom somewhere to buy that patch of land and bulldoze it flat for a shopping mall. Coincidence? Or magic?

Ah, but there's another reason NOT to want to move that mountain in the first place! We have way too many malls, and not nearly enough mountains!

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the long replies, Bill - obviously I really need to explore the entire issues of Will and Magick much more thoroughly.

In one sense, it is a shame that I'm in a stage of life where I'm not able to "tune in" very readily anymore - dealing with the daily pressures of a young family (2 kids, age 4 and 2, and a third on the way for March) drains and distracts entirely. I feel I have little energy and focus to work with at the moment.

Next time my family goes off to visit relatives on the Isle of Man (possibly not until next Summer, now) I'll try to be reminded of these issues - then I will have time and space to focus on a process of communion. Likely I'll get an answer to something, but as experience teaches, it may be an entirely different question that is answered.

Btw - a quick point about the EM fields and distance - certainly quite true. However, we cannot ignore the possibilities raised by the concept of Fractal Geometry. In simple terms, even the weakest field lines are still capable of creating a "butterfly effect" under the right conditions.

As field carriers are effectively subatomic particles - at least for EM, strong and weak nuclear force (the jury still seems uncertain on gravitons) - then I suspect that's where our different perspectives merge into a wider theory. After all, I'm not sure that quantum effects can be viewed in terms of "separate" or "individual" particles, as often seems the case in the science literature. They need viewing in the wider context of the researches of high-energy physics - in this instance, that electrons are not simply isolated particles, but field carriers for EM. My point is that quantum effects on field carriers should translate into specific field effects on the macro-level. (It's harder to discuss the other forces, as EM is so well studied and understood and much more accessible in terms of macro effects).

As before, I know my own ideas on EM will be over-stated, but they expose new concepts, and connect ideas together not ordinarily connected. Therefore it's a necessary part of wider dynamic process to be partially incorrect, to help inspire those who follow to better answers. Also - EM fields only play a smaller part of a wider set of ideas I'll be forwarding, so I've plenty of other matieral to shore up the weaker side.

Btw - a great book I'd like to recommend is "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose - the chair of Maths at Cambridge, I believe. Primarily, he's arguing against Artificial Intelligence, but he does so by taking a round trip through the implications of mathemathical and physical theory. This isn't the usual "Hawkins-esque" exploration of Cosmology, but instead of the mathematical fabric of reality itself. There's a lot of maths in it, but he explains concepts with the written word, and how they apply. I found it very inspiring in certain areas, and would highly recommend it to you - see if you can find some otherwise hidden connections between the concepts you're dealing with. Or has synchronicity already addressed this issue?

[WHKeith]

Yes, like so much else in quantum theory, everything depends on how you look at it--particle or wave? Field or particle exchange? Micro or macro? The answer seems to generally be "Yes."

Yes, synchronicity strikes again. I've read Penrose. I saw what he was driving at, I think, but felt his parameters were too narrowly focused. Maybe I missed something? My personal belief is that consciousness is essentially a quantum effect. The presence of 50 nm microtubules in our cells--especially in the neurons--seems to support the idea that there is a quantum process at work. If so, this breaks us out of the Newtonesque paradigm of the brain as a complex but purely physical machine, and opens the possibility of defining free will as an aspect of quantum probabilities. I find this tremendously exciting.

I agree with Penrose that we won't build a conscious computer simply by making a very fast, very powerful supercalculator. Once we learn how to build a computer using quantum processes, however (and I believe I read recently that just that has been announced by a team in England?), we may well be on the way both to understanding how consciousness works, and to the creation of self-aware machines.

Good point about chaos effect in weak EM fields. I'll add the point that in so far as fields can interfere with one another--in the sense of interference patterns--even an extremly weak field could, theoretically, interact at a distance with another field. I question whether the magnet holding up the shopping list on my kitchen refrigerator is interacting to any significant degree with the magnetic field of a quasar ten billion light years from here, but, hey, you never know!

And in quantum nonlocal terms, there's nothing crazy about the idea at all!

Quick side question for you, Brian. I started a thread the other day in Science and Philosophy about creation and the mind of God. I'm looking for some specific research information there, and was wondering if folks on this board might be able to help. However, the post seems to have vanished. Did you move it? Or did I screw up in the posting?

Thanks!

[I, Brian]

My main interest in Penrose wasn't his overall argument - excepting that it essentially states that there's something major missing in our understanding of how reality works - as much as the areas he takes the reader through. I'm separated from my notes at the moment, but his commentaries regarding non-Euclidean space I found particularly fascinating.

As for Chaos applied to EM fields - amazing to think that the moment you move that fridge magnet, you could implode a star.

The thread referred to is still present - simply pushed down a little as Susma was replying to many topics the other day (still not read all the replies yet) - if you still don't see it, here it is:

Creation in the Mind of God

I don't have an answer personally, but I'm about to visit some old online Christian friends, and I'll mention the topic while I'm there.

[brucegdc]

Yea, bill - too many malls, too few mountains. But what if we moved the mountain onto a mall. That would help....(of course, after removing all the people)

[The Fool]

If I may return to the original argument for a moment: if Magic of some form does exist (as in that our minds and consciuosness can shape material reality), then what is the solution to the Randi-esque criticism that psychics and magicians should therefore be able to produce winning lottery numbers at will?

By the current argument of this thread, it should be possible.

My earlier objections would make it an irrelevant objection - unless a person is shaped by the universe to win a lottery, then no one else will be able to interfere and prevent that particular choice of numbers at that particular event in time.

If anyone wishes to explore this...?

[brucegdc]

Ahh yes, but the opposing forces are high there as well. If I exert my energy to pick the winning lottery number (effectively willing that that combination of balls is picked), there's millions of other people opposed to that - and even if they're not actively willing it, their passive opposition is sufficient counter. That removes the pre-destination need of your counter - there's sufficient chaos/inertia in the situation because there's enough people.

[WHKeith]

Wonderful point, Brian. I was using that very point in the current book--there's some major synchronicity going down here. But if this magic stuff works, why aren't more witches hitting the lottery? The story I just related in the final chapter is true. I had a dear freind who was also a powerful witch. She got to wondering the same thing--why wasn't it possible to use her powers to win the lottery? So she did a ritual, then set out to buy the winning ticket.

[brucegdc]

And you're going to leave us hanging, Bill? When is the publication date so we can hear the rest of the story?

.... Bruce

[WHKeith]

Oops. Sorry. I was typing away and the message suddenly posted itself. Not sure what happened. Singers must have flipped

But, ahem, to continue. My friend went to a nearby convenience store to buy a ticket. The ticket machine was broken. She went to another store a few miles away. They were out of tickets. I believe she said she visited six stores in a row, getting farther and farther away from home, and every one was either out of tickets or the machine was down. She finally, as she put it, got the message.

Now, the synchronicity inherent in six stores in a row unable to produce a lottery ticket suggests--strongly--that something other than chance was happening here, that, in fact, reality was being seriously bent. Not in the magician's favor, obviously, but there IS something paranormal going on.

Bruce, my understanding of the "many opposing forces" idea is that the sum total of all of those forces and different beliefs would result in an outcome indistinguishible from random chance. Total chaos, or white noise, if you like. If that were completely true, there would NEVER be any synchronous events that suggest successful magic. And the universe wouldn't have to fiddle so conspicuously with six convenience stores in Ohio. It also suggests that a strong, well-trained, and well-focused mind could still bring order ouit of chaos and produce a significant effect. Only if two people were actively working on opposite results, knowingly, would the case you state arise . . . I think. My opinion, anyway. [And, it should be stated in passing, the fourth commandment for the magician is "to be silent," an injunction in part declared because boasting about what you've just done magically invites contrary and negative thoughts that can complicate things terribly, and even undo your work.]

My take on it goes like this:

I, as do many witches, believe in reincarnation. I believe that each of us, between incarnate lives, spends some time (if that term has meaning on the Other Side!) planning certain aspects of the next life. We do this with a metaphysical eye toward what we can learn, how we can grow, how we can develop spiritually in that life. Our next life is not planned out in exacting detail, I don't think, but I do believe that the general tone of that life is set, and that there are certain crisis points to move us along in one direction or another, designed so that if we miss one decision point, we'll be faced with it again soon after.

How would your life change, Brian, if someone handed you fifty million dollars? Or pounds, rather?

Sure, we can all say, with great sincerity, that it wouldn't REALLY change us . . . but just the fact that we no longer need to scrabble around in the dirt trying to make ends meet, that we would be free to hand out a million or two to other deserving friends and relatives . . . that we wouldn't need any longer to struggle. Can't speak for you guys, but MY life's path would be enormously altered by that event, even if it did nothing to alter my normally surly disposition.

My friend has a nice house, a good if stressful job, lots of dear friends. It's trite to say she doesn't NEED fifty million pounds, but I do believe her life would have been drastically altered had she done so.

So I propose that we, ourselves, make the key decision points that confront us in life; if we're in danger of going off-track at some point, something--call it our higher self, our spirit guardians, the Divine, whatever--acts to short circuit things and keep us on track.

Does that rule out magic? Certainly not. My experience, repeatedly, is that it DOES work. I've not won a million dollars, nor made a candle light itself--yet--and possibly never will. [And yes, I have tried!] I DO work spells for prosperity, with results that seem to keep the money I need flowing in as I need it. I posted elsewhere my story about the magically invoked check for $100.00.

Many magic traditions insist that it's not good to be greedy or ask too much. I personally feel that idea runs a little too close for my liking to the notion of a malevolent deity standing watch over us, ready to smack us down if we get out of line. I don't think it works that way.

The first and greatest work any magician is called upon to do is to learn what makes him or her tick. What makles me as I am? What is holding me back from a full realization of my own power? Where am I going spiritually? The Crowley-ceremonialists call this the Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel, and also refer to the need to find your True Will. Evidently, my friend's True Will was to NOT win fifty million dollars.

Doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try. The fact that we find ourselves on this path, with magic as an option, means that it is a valid tool that we should experiment with. Winning the jackpot might happen someday. In the meantime, we can use magic to make certain our day-to-day needs are met in a timely fashion and, truthfully, what more do we need?

The tough part is that we need to have absolute belief in our own abilities to produce reliable magical effects, and we sabotauge ourselves if we think that it MIGHT work, maybe, if the gods aren't against it. Use of divination before working a spell can guide us as we craft it, letting us know if there's something going on here that we're not consciously aware of. Seeking our True Will is another, a means of bringing ourselves to a point of working WITH the universe, rather than trying to overcome it.

And . . . who knows? I might win the lottery yet. Assuming I ever go out and buy a ticket.