Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

If you really think Page wasn't highly taking seriously Magick during Led Zeppelin then you are mistaken. If you do not think he is practicing Magick, and used it on Zeppelin to achieve ultimate results then you are highly mistaken.

"but what about all the other rock stars who didn't use Magick?" ...no one ever said you need Magick, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. And no band really walked the earth quite like Led Zeppelin did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebz8gcWvg5A 1:18 you can be assured he is casting a spell

 

We can preform miracles.

 

From here: http://www.soulrebels.com/beth/magick.html . . . This about right?

 

This is page's connection to magic, [SIZE=14.4444446563721px] Page owned the [/SIZE]Boleskine House[SIZE=14.4444446563721px] the former residence of occultist [/SIZE]Aleister Crowley.
Page in fact struggled with drug addiction. The urban mythology assumption is since he is living there he must be practicing magic. I don't know because of the energies of the house or something, regardless I am not to be revered in any form.

 

And I have a hard time agreeing that simply learning and adapting to your environment is Science. Science as a term didn't exist until the birth of modern Science. If you are arguing that it existed before that, then Alchemy, Magick, Shamanism and Religion are all certainly Science. Not sure how or why you are arguing that Science existed first? it certainly did not!

 

I don't know if I'm decoding you right here. Obviously there was knowledge before there was shamanism. Animals have knowledge in some ways.
But the whole point of the shaman in traditional cultures is that the shaman is the one who can see what others cannot see. Go places others cannot go. It's precisely because the knowledge of the shamans is a specialized thing not known to all that gives the shamans their status.

 

Science also doesn't KNOW that its experiments will result in the given hypotheses. How is that any different?

 

To walk the earth is to walk the earth. the subjective perception is limited in it's approach to knowledge only through qualification.

 

No the perception that others can't follow is his meal ticket. There is always something that comes before, observation. Shaman reflects course of study. Shaman committed to understanding. No one has special qualities only variable perspectives.

 

Let's just suck on Science's dick a little more because we NEED science, even though the word "Scientist" didn't exist until 1833, and even though animals and plants have no idea what that word means, it must be something that we all NEED. We NEED science in order to evolve. That's basically what you're saying, Writer, and it's simply not true. Humans existed for a long time without science, and according to your argument that learning and adapting is science, then alchemy and magick and religion have all been things that changed and adapted and evolved from learning over the course of history, so that must also be Science. Magick is Science and Science is Magick. Astrology is also Science. The MAYAN CALENDAR would also be Science.

 

Words are symbols of conditions. To say we don't need science is to say we don't need to be aware of conditions.

 

Myself I don't see any big contradiction between being into magical thinking and scientific thinking. It's true to say that some of the founders of modern science, like Newton, were also interested in magical type stuff.

The thing is though that there are many different ideas of what 'magick' actually is. For some, it would be about producing some physical effect or result - eg. conjour up a pound of gold, make x fall in love with me, - that sort of thing.
A higher conception of it would be that it's a kind of pathway to self or spiritual development, experience, knowledege. That's the way I've always viewed Crowley's version of it.
I've never practised any kind of set ritual magick or ceremony. But I've had experiences I'd consider to be magical.
Really it's just another way of looking at the world. One channel you can tune in on. Science is a slightly different one. Both can be very interesting.

 

Maybe Science can take a look around and observe the effects of its modern place in history and how all of its advancements and achievements have endangered our entire species as a whole in the 20th and 21st centuries alone.

If Science really sees that we are all One then it would take the time to see and study the legitimacy of Magick and other Spiritual things such as Kundalini and even the Mayan Calendar. How can they be separate from Science if it's all One, afterall?

 

All I'm saying is obviously we didn't NEED science if it didn't exist for MOST of history. And if one is going to argue that what came before "modern science" is also science then once again that would mean that alchemy, magic, religion, shamanism, astrology and the mayan calendar all fall under the category of Science. But most scientists wouldn't say that, would they? This is where the arrogance and pretentiousness of Science reeks of itself.

And you're trying to argue that everyday things learned even by small animals is Science. How is that different than when I was saying that one could potentially turn any activity into a Magickal activity, with which you responded that "Magick is nothing but doing everyday things"? So then you're saying that Magick is Science?

 

Most others have no desire to follow, and many are fearful of doing so. In many cultures, the experiences that shamans report are not particularly appealing to a great many people. The nature of the experiences, and the motifs that occur in them seem to crop up in similar forms all over the world.

As for the meal ticket - in many hunter gatherer cultures the shamans are hunters or gatherers along with everyone else. They don't just get fed for shamanizing.

Also, many people do have special qualities. You get people who have huge talents for art, music etc which the vast majority of people simply don't have.

 

If Science is simply doing everyday things, then I would posit that Science is the foundation from which Magick can flower, as Magick involves the choice to turn an everyday thing into a Magickal thing. A scientist has a hypotheses to see a given result. A Magician CHOOSES an outcome to see a given result. Science could but chooses not to study this, which I'm not sure why as it sounds very Quantum to me.

"Magic is the Science of the Future" -Colin Wilson

 

Talent is talent, we all share talent. Like I said variable perspectives on talent. What you are arguing for is limitation on knowing, yours as well as others. I know something special that makes me valuable. In this instance we are not aware of value that exists in everything. My concern is for the knowledge we share not a particular focus. Many shamans specialize and live apart from the group in large part and make their living through offering or trade their skills for a chicken.

Every one wants to be special and miss the meaning of precious. What I mean by follow is can't know or understand.

 

And that's a great point in and of itself, so if Magick isn't real, Writer, than neither is Shamanism? Just because Science doesn't acknowledge, study, or even know how to study it? I would call Shamanism an even more advanced path than Magick, and where Magick derives its knowledge from... as Shamanism is the oldest of old and Hermetic people always attributed their knowledge to the oldest of teachings.

You basically have Alchemy, which was born in ancient Egypt and ancient China, Shamanism, which who knows how fucking old that is, and then Hinduism, which is FUCKING OLD. They ALL came prior to Science.

 

Good saying merging disparate issues. As to outcomes there aren't any, only ongoing relationships.
We come out

 

Chinacat - Couple of things I'd say about this. Firstly, not all scientists reject the possibility of a spiritual or even magical dimension to things. The problem is that those who go public with any kind of idea that contradicts the strict materialist view of modern science gets pushed to the fringes and attacked. A good example of this would be Rupert Sheldrake, whose work is actually quite interesting and may point towards a kind of expanded paradigm for science in general.

Another aspect of it has to do with scientific method itself. Science can't make any kind of presumptions - everything has to be verified by repeatable experiments. It's this that has given us the only accurate information we have abut the structure of the physical universe. The method is everything and it can't be compromised.
On the other hand, science could certainly do more to investigate consciousness. And actually, that's starting to happen with people being given psychedelics and having their brains scanned and stuff like that.