"noname"
wrote in message
news:mmr6d45p0rugvcro4qabcq3t15coc6tb7l@4ax.com...> "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.
Can you see my mouth from there? I think you may be imagining things.
Perhaps you'd like to point out just which words you read that prompted you
to imagine mouth-frothing.
> The 'materialist' part is a conclusion drawn because of your
> obsession with "particulars" in preference to essence.
Actually, it's closer to constructive realism than to materialism. If your
"essence" cannot be translated into particulars, then you don't understand
the "essence" you're trying to talk about.
>>> 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.
So then you know that magick is indeed about mechanisms. It always has
been, actually. The method by which intention becomes action is through the
operation of mechanisms.
> There is nothing magical about mechanisms, they are simple constructs
> which work in and are limited to the realm commonly called "material
> reality".
Then it's clear that you really *don't* know what a mechanism is, despite
having been told quite clearly and specifically. There are metaphysical
mechanisms too. These are the structures of idea and image that allow us to
transform our perception of the world (the world as it is as well as the
world we conceive) in specific ways and to discover new ways in which we can
interact with it. While a machine is certainly one kind of mechanism, a
mechanism is not always a machine. Mechanisms are not merely physical
constructions.
>>> 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.
Then it is *you* who is restricting yourself to materiality, since you have
completely failed to see that mechanisms are not just machines and not tied
only to physical operations. This is really a self-contradiction in your
outlook. Your self-imposed restriction to material reality likely comes
from your intense desire to escape material reality. It seems clear that
you consider materiality to be inferior and unnecessary. Thus you try to
screen materiality out of your life, which is futile because your life
extends through materiality and is inseparable from it. In essence, you're
trying to rip your own lungs out so they won't get in the way of your
breathing.
>>> 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.
What's the difference between "induction" and "force"?
>> Give me an example of a magical act and a
>>non-magical act. Compare and contrast them.
>
> Piss off, I am not your servant.
Nor are you a competent debater. All you're doing is emoting, "pissing off"
as it were.
> Here again you demonstrate your preference for details over essence.
Here you are failing to comprehend that, if what you say is true, then it is
true in particular as well as in general. Since you don't really have a
clear idea about "essence", you cannot translate it into particulars.
> 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.
Ah, the obligatory brave exit speech already. That was easy.
