"Sending Magickal Experiments"
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 22:00:22 EST

>> What type of magickal works or experimental description are you
>> looking for?

> I was referring to things that could cause some kind of
> measurable change. We had a few folks claiming they could use
> magick for TK and the like. (They couldn't give me an experiment to
> verify.)

Many beginners make this fundamental mistake-- they do some rituals or
practices and notice odd concidences. From this they conclude that
they are able to "cause" such coincidences. A more advanced
practicioner has a somewhat different view-- they think of themselves
as "participating in the synchronicitious process of coincidence",
without egoically assuming that they are the cause of said

You'll get no-one to offer you valid experimental evidence of magick,
except for "psychological" effects. Some advanced practicioners could
offer you "statistical" experimental evidence-- but why should they?

Magick is 'really' neuroscience and biology. The hooky-spooky stuff is
pure crap, except for the .005% that isn't.

>> What about the differences between the way a beginner and an
>> experienced practicioner would respond to this 'question' or
>> challenge

> Well, what about that difference? I've gotten email from a
> few beginners who basically say, 'We're not worthy!' -- That seems
> to be the beginners' only response. A few more advanced people have
> sent me magical experiments. I think two or three-- a truly
> underwhelming response.

No genuinely advanced practicioner would "send you a magical
experiment". Your challenge is mildly interesting, but it's form is
nonsensical. A person can't move from the state of being a naive
beginner to the state of being a beginning practicioner without coming
up with an answer to the questions you posed-- but asking the net to
"send you magical experiments" sure as hell isn't going to give you
that answer.

Do the practices, and observe the changes that occur in
yourself. That's the bottom line-- nothing else will do. No amount of
reading, no amount of philosophizing, and no amount of bull****
gabfest on the net will give you real data on wether or not this stuff
called "magick" has any validity.

> I have a feeling that I'm missing the point of your post.
> Could you elaborate? Are you saying that magick is not meant to
> have reproducible experiments?

I'm saying that as you are starting out with a naive and superstitious
beginner's definition of magick, your challenge is nonsensical.
Interesting, because you seem to be resisting swallowing the crap that
everyone else is swallowing, but still preposterous, based as it is on
a foolish view of what magick is supposed to be...

Magick is quite reproducible. But you know what they say. You can't
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Or is it garbage in, garbage
out? Whatever, one of those two should cover it.

Trust nothing. Do the practices.

Later, Bill

Bill Eichman, P.O. Box 734, State College, Pa. 16804-0734