I want to believe

be more specific

>>17354253
>But Is there any evidence that proves magick works and produces results?
Unfortunately, no. You can argue that magick resists any attempt to prove its existence, but you'd be on the wrong side of science, of course.
>Or is it all just confirmation bias?
Highly likely.

Sorry, anon. You're entitled to your beliefs but they can never be proved or disproved.

You can choose the blue pill, which is philosophical hedonism, believing in things that feel good, that you want to be true, which is satisfying to you.

Or you can choose the red pill, which requires hard work and dedication, and a devotion to the rigorous use of reason and evidence in all matters of inquiry, to cast aside arrogance and egotism as much as possible and be your own harshest intellectual critic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8h-xEuLfm8

>>17354253
If there was hard core scientific evidence then magic wouldn't be constrained to paranormal boards on Japanese image boards

>>17354260
If a person does a ritual for a physical result that comes about, is there any reason to believe the ritual had a hand in having it happen, or was the person better off not wasting their time because it had nothing to do with it?

A good example of evidence would be a ritual or sigil or something that can reliably manifest a physical result with a less than 90% chance of happening, repeatedly.

>>17354274
Sorry, I don't do drugs!
Nice try anon, but I have to go eat dinner with my family. Also, we can't hang out anymore.

>>17354278
be more specific

>>17354288
Good double, but could you be more specific about what you would like anon to clarify?

>>17354294
the specific ritual, the specific results

>>17354288
A spell that can reliably (works at least 9/10 times) give it's caster, regardless of job, status, location, a million American dollars, or their equivalent current value, within a year, with no additional effort other than the spell itself.

>>17354301
so what is the ritual and why specifically a million dollars as the result?

>>17354301
Wouldn't economic forces conspire to disempower the spell as soon as it was publicised?
Something completely useless & trivial would be a much better test case.

>>17354307
What the ritual is is what I'm asking you, a million dollars because it's a generally desirable outcome which is improbable to otherwise happen to most people.

>>17354253
Magic is anything that can happen in a way that isn't natural. Disregards science. Is unnatural.
Just by that definition alone it is heavily implied it's something inherently impossible.

>>17354311
It doesn't have to be publicized, but anon asked for an example.

But you're right, I should've said a spell that can have an unhampered coin land heads 10 times in a row, reliably.

>>17354312
You might wanna start with three songbirds or a blue gumball or a Susan B Anthony dollar.

>>17354314
I was going by the definition of having reality bend to your will, either through help from entities, or sheer force of will, in a way that would not have happened otherwise

>>17354253
If magic were real, do you really think all these supposed "wizards", who have been practicing for years, would really spend all of their free time shitposting on /x/, the objectively dumbest fucking board on all of 4chan?

>>17354315
Way better, the next thing to consider is that a "spell" is, in essence, a thoughtform as much or moreso than a ritual or incantation, so the problem of reliably reproducing a thoughtform across minds comes up.
I'd suggest that the next level of experimental control be the involvement of only one person, but even then their mind, at the outset of each trial will be changed by the previous trials, among other potential variables...
Maybe the subjects should be "wiped" with scopolomine or benedryl or something?

>>17354316
Not sure what that means anon

>>17354319
I bet you believe in skeletons too.

>>17354318
That's just either free will or flat out unnatural means.
One is just science proven to work, the other is flat out impossible.

Either way, no magic.

>>17354333
Understanding and controlling these 'variables' would work, if we knew what they were

>>17354338
If any of this stuff does end up being Real, there's probably a scientific explanation. Ideally that's what I'm looking for, but that's probably going to be hard to find.

>>17354359
That's the whole point.
If science can explain it, it ends being magic.
One concept excludes the other.

>>17354373
Then it'll just be called magic until science can explain just, just like lightning probably was, and diseases.

>>17354351
Okay, I've got the experiment!

We simulate the entire planet since 2001 on multiple supercomputers & try to figure out if the September 11 attacks& iraq war always result in the formation of the Islamic state. If they do, magic does real.

>>17354373
Only if you choose to arbitrarily define magic in the way you have above.

>>17354380
Magic = theory?

>>17354392
Then how would you?

>>17354253
Magick, like any psychological technology, Works as well as you allow it to. Magick is about changing you.

>>17354393
In a way, yes
Just like people would interpret plague or natural disasters as the wrath of an angry God, we interpret the mechanism of why dancing around in a robe makes things happen as 'magic'.

Again, assuming magic works, which the thread seems tk be deviating from.

>>17354407
So you just wanna poke where sciece has yet to care to look into?
Try your brain. Plenty of fucked up shit there to try out.
I recomend lucid dreaming.

>>17354416
Exactly.
I want to know if any if it has a direct effect of the physical, outside of the body.

>>17354396
closer to this:
>>17354407
What we call "magic" exists. Assuredly not in the form we like to romanticize and imagine in fantasy and certainly not the claims made by religion, but the effects of ceremony, belief, and ritual are very real.

There is an irritating tendency within the skeptical community (of which I consider myself a part) to immediately dismiss the "supernatural" or the "spiritual" with immediate disdain, regardless of the evidence of its passing.

I do not believe that these thigns will remain forever mysterious or unknowable, but there are phenomenon which are not being studied due to an instantaneous and frankly arrogant bias toward the "rational".

File: 1411497793362.jpg (35KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x500px

Get one of those card board egg cartons, some good soil, and some seeds that will grow in your desired conditions.

Make two sets of these. One that is just a normal set of plants you want to grow. The second is one you have done what ever kind of ritual or magic or whatever. The "spell effect" in question will be something simple: spout faster.

Germination for a lot of plants takes 5 days to a week. If your "enchanted plants" typically sprout in the early potion of when they usually sprout, then the spell works. If it doesnt you might have some nice herbs or something. Win/win here.

>>17354440
I like this.

>>17354422
>the effects of belief, ceremony, and ritual are very real.
Why do you think that?

>>17354440
That is actually a good idea, thank you.

>>17354422
Don't misunderstand me.
I know oh so well the power of spirituality and continuous practice (rituals/routine).
Problem is: Poe's law. It's hard to distinguish between bullshit and sincerety if both are exagerated. And in this case both sides uses the word "ritual".

I agree that there are things beyond scientific knowledge, but they are far from unnatural.

>>17354451
>Why do you think that?
Because psychology, anthropology and sociology have evidenced it many times.

>That is actually a good idea, thank you.
This is a terrible idea, because even if it works, its circumstantial, if the plants that you said magic over sprout faster, you have to eliminate a million variables first, the contents of the egg carton on both sides, the soil content, the light exposure on both sides, the temeperature on both sides, theres far too many variables in this "experiment" to consider it proof of anything one way or the other.

>>17354452
I agree with your statement entirely, I think what were both saying here is that "unnatural" and "supernatural" are the semantic problem in this discussion.

>>17354475
>Because psychology, anthropology and sociology have evidenced it many times.
Can I see some examples?

Not doubting you, I genuinely want to see some evidence to put my doubts on the subject to rest.

File: FatFace.jpg (23KB, 500x479px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x479px

>>17354475
Yeah, 2 or three sets of these being 3 feet from each other on my porch with the same amount of sun and water with the same soil/seed from the same bag is gonna vary so wildly i mean how the fuck does this prove anything.

>>17354482
I realize that statement was perhaps misleading, let me rephrase it:
"Belief, ceremony and faith HAVE effects, as evidenced in sociology and psychology. They are not necessarily the effects purported BY the belief or ceremony or faith, but they do have effects."

Self hypnosis, cognitive behavioral techniques, placebo effect and many others are clearly evident in these processes.
>>17354486
son are you trolling or do you legitimately not fucking know how science works and why this 'experiment' is bullshit?

>>17354499
The "variables" in a stable environment arnt big enough to make such a significant impact that an multiple sets of "enchanted" seeds are going to somehow always sprout faster by chance.

>>17354522
Isnt that kind of moot? If you cant rely on magic to work in at least a semi controlled environment then whats the point of using it in the first place?

File: image.jpg (133KB, 522x695px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 522x695px

Alright my man. In regards to occultism, there are two general distinctions; magic and mysticism.

Mysticism is quality and magic is quantity - while mysticism is a refinement of ones constitution, magic is a utilization of ones constitution.

What do I mean by constituion? Well, there are four elements - namely Fire, Air, Water and Earth, and these corresponds to Will, Intellect, Emotion and Consciousness.

You are not likely to prove the effectivy of magic to a great extent through personal practice, simply because magic requires well developed faculties. You are, however, very easily able to prove the effectivy of mysticism, particularly the excistence of the energetic body, through practices such as Qi Gong.

Magic is the utilization of the universal laws through your refined faculties. It's a very bad idea to practice something you don't understand, as there are many complex gears in the machinery that can fuck you up - and it's a waste of time pulling handles that are too heavy.

In regards to scientific evidence, that is a question of the maturity of the field of science as a whole. There was a particular Swami who put himself up for testing, but the instruments weren't sensitive enough to account for his energetic aspect. Sure, you have studies in the field of Neurobiology proving the efficiency of meditation, studies on the practice of Thumo, of Indian Sages being buried alive, the studies of Baron Reichenbach and such, and you can even find some peculiar videos on youtube if you know where to look. But, someone materialistically inclined will deny anything metaphysical on even the slightest account, and someone spiritually inclined will believe on very little basis. You have atheists denying magic with the wildest excuses when they get exposed to it, and New Agers who live in their fluffy delusions without ever being exposed to anything spiritual. Both are extremes. Personal experience is mostly to be relied upon.

>>17354253
Try out and you don't have to believe anymore.
>>17353520

>>17354654
This is good post, thanks.
So say I wanted to get into mysticism, where would I start?

>>17355467
I will try this, thanks.

>>17355506
Not that anon, but I have some input here.

Read, read a lot. Read everything you can get your hands on. Dig into the esoteric archives, dig into the /x/ sticky. Dig into authors such as Agrippa, "Hermes Trismegistus," even Dee or "Christian Rosencruetz."

Understand that at one point in human history it was possible to read every book ever written. This stopped being possible around 400 BCE. I highly recommend trying to get access to philosophical treatises written before this time. This way you will understand where later authors are coming from.

To begin studying mysticism in any capacity, you must first have certain understandings... otherwise you won't know what you are looking at.

There are lesser mysteries, and greater mysteries, and obvious bullshit that is there to fuck with you. You need the lesser mysteries to explain the higher mysteries, and you need a good enough bullshit detector to be able to throw out the bullshit. The only way to get a bullshit detector is to read everything.

I personally recommend some ancient philosophy courses at a local college. Maybe a local university has some specific PHIL courses that could help. I also recommend a cursory understanding of the kabbalah.

Remember, this is just the start.

>>17355579
sounds good thanks

>>17354301
This is impossible. This is not what magic is.

If it would be so easy everyone would be a millionaire. Magic is hard work in the first place.

>>17354654
>the instruments weren't sensitive enough to account for his energetic aspect.
That is very convenient. I am sure if he could move objects with his mind or alter the weather scientists could observe his magic with their own eyes. If the man's powers are so minor as to not show up under any circumstances, what exactly is the point?

What is some recommended occult lit?

>>17355506
Hermetic tradition;
- William Walker Atkinson, The Kybalion
- Georg Lomer, 7 Hermetic Letters
- Franz Bardon, Initiation Into Hermetics
- Franz Bardon, Practice of Magical Evocation

Yogic tradition;
- Sadhguru's videos on YouTube
- Yogiraj Siddhanath's videos on YouTube
- Swami Sivananda's writings on http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/teachings.htm
- Swami Vivekenanda, Raja Yoga
- Paramhansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi

European Alchemy;
- Julius Evola, The Hermetic Tradition
- Mary Anne Atwood, Hermetic Mystery

Daoist Alchemy;
- Jerry Alan Johnson, Medical Qi Gong Vol. 1,2,3
- Flying Phoenix DVD series of Terry Dunn
- Spring Forest QiGong of Chunyi Lin

Bonpo of Tibet;
- Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche, Healing with Form, Energy and Light

Neoplatonic Philosophy;
- Algis Uzdavinys, Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth
- Jean Louis De-Biasi, The Divine Arcana of Aurum Solis
- Jean Louis De Biasi, Rediscover the Magick of the Gods and Goddesses
- Articles at TheDivineScience.com

Christian Mysticism;
- Mouni Sadhu, Theurgy
- Stylianos Atteshlis, The Esoteric Practice

Sufism;
- Hazrat Inyat Khan, The Art of Being and Becoming

Kabbalah;
- Sefer Yetzirah, Aryeh Kaplan

Chaos Magick;
- Phil Hine

I have not mentioned Buddhism because I'm rather unfamiliar with that tradition. If you are, however, make sure to look into Nyingma and Vajrana.

Shamanism is much more magical than it is mystical, and material has hence be left out.

Jewish mysticism, known as Kabbalah, was adapted in the Renaiscance as a veil for esoteric Neoplatonic teachings - Jewish Kabbalah is actually a system of incantation, not planetary ritual magic as its made out to be these days.

There is also the Northern Tradition that has revived the use of the Runes, which I'm not well versed in either. In the same vein, there is also Traditional Witchcraft which is seperated from Wicca, the latter having a laughable reputation among occultists.

Cont.

File: 1444931083848.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>17355759
>- William Walker Atkinson, The Kybalion
>- Georg Lomer, 7 Hermetic Letters
>- Franz Bardon, Initiation Into Hermetics
>- Franz Bardon, Practice of Magical Evocation


>European Alchemy;
>- Julius Evola, The Hermetic Tradition
>- Mary Anne Atwood, Hermetic Mystery

>Daoist Alchemy;
>- Jerry Alan Johnson, Medical Qi Gong Vol. >1,2,3
-> Flying Phoenix DVD series of Terry Dunn
>- Spring Forest QiGong of Chunyi Lin

>>17354253
Do it and find out for yourself.

I know it works for me. I've also learned that it's like the fucking "Monkey's Paw". Be EXTREMELY specific about shit or you'll get what you want, but not HOW you want it.

>>17355759
I recommend starting with "Healing with Form, Light and Energy" by Tenzin Rinpoche - potent practices with some solid theory.

The first thing you should do as a practicioner is to acquire a meditation seat - traditionally an animal skin is recommended, but a blanket made out of either wool, cotton, linen or silk will do just fine. Keep it in a particular place that is solely dedicated to practice.

Have some special clothes that you only wear during meditation. Eventually, putting these on will act like a trigger and put you in the proper mindset - the same goes for lighting incense.

Padmasana is recognized by both Hindu's, Buddhists, Tibetans and Daoists as being one of the most beneficial postures for meditation. Should you find it appealing, here is a good guide for streching; http://www.ashtanganeworleans.com/Old%20Website/StudentSection/LotusGrow.htm

Oh, and I almost forgot. The Science of Breath, by William Walker Atkinson, is a good guide to Yogic Pranayama.

With all that said, there are many traditions, and even within a given tradition the teachers differ alot. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "best" system, but only a system that is best for you - meaning, its important how you reasonate with a particular system. You might like something on paper, even hear good things about it from fellow practicioners, but if it doesnt feel right for you, by all means, find another. There are many, many systems availible, and I have excluded some to keep it simple.

The important thing is not to waste your time with excessive reading, and, as with all change, to have a clear vision and the willpower to pursue it. Godspeed my friend.

>>17355759

>Chaos Magick;
->-Phil Hine

Do you not into peter Carroll & Austin Osman Spare? Why?

>>17354396
>>17354393
You are being intentionally obtuse and you are annoying as fuck. You don't come off as "smart", you come off like a know-it-all twat who knows nothing. Which is obvious, really.

>>17354440
Anime gay

>>17355804
Haven't read anything by them, yet.

>>17355874
Spare was more of a visual artist, Carroll was a good writer though, he has a lot of shortish communiqués if you just wanna dip your toe in, like:
http://www.ain23.com/topy.net/paradigm_shifts.html

>>17354475
Yeah true.

>>17355805
And I get from your theory on the matter that you know an actual lot about it.
Please, do enlighten me on the ways of the force.