"Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:
>"noname"
wrote in message
>news:re04d45q522vrd6q2d0nt1g4ut9r4gqisv@4ax.com...>>
>> I'm curious. What's a rabid materialist such as yourself doing in
>> alt.magick?
>
>What qualities denote a "rabid materialist", in your opinion?
The 'rabid' part is a conclusion drawn because of your frothing at the
mouth. The 'materialist' part is a conclusion drawn because of your
obsession with "particulars" in preference to essence.
>> Is magick about mechanisms these days?
>
>Yes, it is. As I said, a "mechanism" is a structure in which parts work
>together to produce a particular outcome. Rituals, for example. Or the
>Kabballah.
I know what a mechanism is but thanks anyway, for all you knew I might
not have known about mechanisms.
There is nothing magical about mechanisms, they are simple constructs
which work in and are limited to the realm commonly called "material
reality". If you prefer to restrict yourself to those changes that
can be obtained within material reality then mechanisms may be of some
use; if however you wish to modify material reality in a more global
(perhaps drastic is a better word) fashion you will find that
mechanisms fall short... material reality has a structure and
historicity that must be maintained and those may not be modified from
within.
>> Mechanisms are so egalitarian, anybody with a few bucks can buy one,
>> the more bucks you have the nicer the mechanism.
>
>Having not paid attention, you seem to have missed the distinction I made
>between a machine and a mechanism. This is a very common error, not paying
>attention.
When you restrict reality to materiality all mechanisms are machines,
rituals can be performed by anyone with the intent and discipline
required to perform them. They are cheap immitations that any stupid
fuck with sufficient arrogance and a little determination can apply to
the same effect as anyone else. Mechanisms are methods of mechanizing
a process, and the process of modifying reality is one that cannot be
mechanized.
>> Or maybe alt.magick is about sleight-of-hand and
>> card tricks and has nothing to do with actual magic.
>
>How are you defining magick?
Magick is the same as magic except for the connotation of force that
comes with the "k" in magick. Magic cannot be forced, it can only be
induced.
> Give me an example of a magical act and a
>non-magical act. Compare and contrast them.
Piss off, I am not your servant.
>> Why are you in alt.philosophy.taoism anyway?
>
>*I* am not in alt.philosophy.taoism any more that *you* are.
Here again you demonstrate your preference for details over essence.
You consistently use it to avoid. Pay attention.
And do not let the fact that future replies fail to appear in
alt.magick snooker you into concluding that such replies do not exist.
--
there, see that? a flying monkey!
