Curses?

[1137]

I still don't see how occultism is not in anyway scientific. Make the hypothesis, put your experiment (ritual) together, gather data, see if it works. The only difference is the subjectivity which differentiates between occultism and science.

As to why I'm here I'm not sure anymore. I originally thought I found a nice LHP forum to share ideas and ended up spending two years being told I'm not a real magician, fed dogma, debated over subjective concepts because they contradict someone's organization, etc. DIR should be called RHP dressed in black.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I still don't see how occultism is not in anyway scientific. Make the hypothesis, put your experiment (ritual) together, gather data, see if it works. The only difference is the subjectivity which differentiates between occultism and science.

That is the reason; science done right is based solely on objective conclusions based on empirically gathered data. The basis of the scientific acts as it's own filter to gradually weed out subjectivity, personal feelings, and leave us with concepts stripped down to their most basic principles and understandings that are all based on what we can see, measure, test, and repeat.

 

[1137]

Yes... which is why science and occultism are two different things...

 

[Adramelek]

As to why I'm here I'm not sure anymore. I originally thought I found a nice LHP forum to share ideas and ended up spending two years being told I'm not a real magician, fed dogma, debated over subjective concepts because they contradict someone's organization, etc. DIR should be called RHP dressed in black.

Look Doors I like you, you do seem to have a lot to offer, just know whenever I am challenged I will always continue to put forth my point of view in whatever way I may deem appropriate.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Quintessence]

Honestly, I don't consider myself LHP or RHP, but I'm not going to get into my objections to this dichotomy. Main reason I'm here is because I do, on occasion, have something useful to contribute given my path includes things that are relatively taboo. Like curses. I know I tend to be obtuse in sharing my workings in this direction for a variety of reasons, but many of my remarks on curses were inspired by personal experience. I might have agreed once with statements like "curses only work if you believe in them." There is some merit to that statement, but not all of my experiences seem support it. I'm not convinced that lack of belief in curses is any better protection than the lack of belief that a tornado will hit your house. The tornado will hit you regardless of your belief, as can a curse.

[Kinda trying to bring this back on topic, guys... heh.]

 

[1137]

So if all evidence points to the power of superstition being all in the mind, and there's absolutely no reason to believe in supernatural forces outside of subjective feeling / interpretation, both possibilities are equally likely?

 

[1137]

Curses fall under the category of occultism, not science. There is no scientific evidence that curses exist, meaning no evidence that there is some objective magical force to curse people with. What seems to be objectively true is a curse and whatever "power" it has stems from the individual mind, exact same thing as with prayer.

 

[Quintessence]

So if all evidence points to the power of superstition being all in the mind, and there's absolutely no reason to believe in supernatural forces outside of subjective feeling / interpretation, both possibilities are equally likely?

Whose evidence? What kinds of evidence? Who said anything about something supernatural? What makes probability a relevant factor here? As has been mentioned: this isn't science. Why are we treating it like it is? Why are we requiring it conform to metrics and statistics?

Just some things to think about. I'm not interested in debating this, even if this wasn't a DIR. I simply wished to clarify where I'm coming from in the spirit of understanding.

 

[1137]

Maybe I'm just under the impression that blind and especially fideistic faith are specifically RHP. Either way psychology, neuroscience, etc ARE science, and their evidence supports that something like a curse is in the mind. You're fantastic at bouncing around a point Q but it changes nothing.

 

[Skorzeny]

For what it's worth, Quint, I highly doubt any other members of the LHP DIR disagree with you. Don't worry about limiting the scope of your responses out of worry for the DIR rules. Your input is appreciated here.

 

[1137]

For what it's worth, Quint, I highly doubt any other members of the LHP DIR disagree with you. Don't worry about limiting the scope of your responses out of worry for the DIR rules. Your input is appreciated here.

Obviously I'm in the wrong place then. Apologies for violating rules and disagreeing on matters of faith to all, I was told this was a LHP DIR. I shall take my leave.

 

[Skorzeny]

Obviously I'm in the wrong place then. Apologies for violating rules and disagreeing on matters of faith to all, I was told this was a LHP DIR. I shall take my leave.

There is a difference between disagreement and shooting down someone's faith in a display of what can only be described as blatant arrogance. I'm not actively disagreeing with your perspective, nor is Quint, but the LHP is extremely broad, and as 'conformist' as it sounds, a practitioner's personal approach can (and often will) contain RHP elements, whether it revolts you or not. They are just applied differently, and are often centred around autotheism, which is what generally separates them from the body of RHP religions. Yours doesn't have to include these elements, but there are others whom incorporate the acknowledgement of the potential existence of the supernatural into their occult practices, and they have every right to.

Nota bene - I never said you violated any rules, I just decided that someone should make it clear that it's not okay to deliberately attempt to shoot down someone's beliefs when the 'religion' that we identify with is, itself, an umbrella term for belief systems of which no two are the same as each other. Quint has her approach, you have yours, and I have mine.

 

[1137]

I am not sure how many times I have to give a similar example, but telling a flat-earther that the world is round is not shooting down their faith but rather simply explaining a fact to them. Obviously this is not fact, just what is most likely. What seems impossible to do is explain that it's nearly irrelevant whether a curse exists or not, it is all about belief.

Obviously a LHPer can share aspects with the RHP, I know I do and most I've talked to do. This is not the problem I often run into here, but rather blatant RHPers dressed in black hoods wearing pentagrams. It's irrelevant though anymore.

 

[Quintessence]

Maybe I'm just under the impression that blind and especially fideistic faith are specifically RHP. Either way psychology, neuroscience, etc ARE science, and their evidence supports that something like a curse is in the mind. You're fantastic at bouncing around a point Q but it changes nothing.

Of course psychology and neuroscience are science. I don't think anyone was disagreeing with that. I also don't think anyone was disagreeing that - from the vantage point of science - various occult phenomena (curses or otherwise) are explained as products of human brain chemistry. That's really the only way the sciences can explain it given methodological constraints. You're completely right that no amount of sleight of hand changes what the science is. What's being questioned is a total reliance on science for the indisputable dogmatic answers to absolutely everything (aka, a philosophy of scientism), not what the science itself is saying.

Honestly, I've gotten the sense throughout this entire conversation that there is a lot of miscommunication going on.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Obviously I'm in the wrong place then. Apologies for violating rules and disagreeing on matters of faith to all, I was told this was a LHP DIR. I shall take my leave.

Or you could, you know. remove that awfully big chip from your shoulder.

 

[Adramelek]

Maybe I'm just under the impression that blind and especially fideistic faith are specifically RHP.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Everything I might believe or determine to be a truth, when it comes to religious or magical philosphy, has been developed over years and even decades of personal study, practice, and the gathering of observable data.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Quintessence]

Faith has nothing to do with it. Everything I might believe or determine to be a truth, when it comes to religious or magical philosphy, has been developed over years and even decades of personal study, practice, and the gathering of observable data.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

To be fair, we do have faith in our senses and our own reason, if nothing else.

 

[Adramelek]

To be fair, we do have faith in our senses and our own reason, if nothing else.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but is it really "faith" ? :sarcastic

 

[Quintessence]

Depends on how one wishes to define the term. I use the term "faith" as synonymous with reasonable trust, often coupled with personal desire. After all, if you do not want to believe - if you don't desire to believe - you're not going to invest faith/trust. It's a common issue in metaphysical communities that people second-guess their own experiences. They don't have faith in their senses and their reason. If they never develop it, the odds are decent that they will abandon having a metaphysical outlook.

But I am using too few words to convey what is a more nuanced topic...