Would you consider magick, or any of the appropriate terms for

>>18042855
But you are only manipulating your perception of reality. So, everyone's right and wrong at the same time.

>>18042855
I've been calling it that for a long time.

>>18042860

Maybe.

>>18042855
It's spelled "magic" in English, there is no K.

>>18042882

kek

File: 2f5278ae99404a6ff6cc891212955494.jpg (19KB, 236x352px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x352px

>>18042855
Sure

>>18042882
>It's spelled "magic" in English, there is no K.
Magic is prestidigitation.
Magick is the cool stuff.

>>18043096
Alternate view: "Magick" is everything derived from Crowley, while "Magic" is pre-Crowley or anti-Crowley.

>>18042855
>Would you consider magick, or any of the appropriate terms for manipulating reality, applied metaphysics?

oh, you mean performance psychology and confirmation bias. no, i would not.

>>18042855
No, metaphysics is still a science with a scientific method, even if at times it seems like it isn't.

There is no scientific method in magick - things either work or don't work, sometimes even if you're repeating things exactly.

I think it would be more appropriate to say metaphysics is applied will magick.

>>18043563
>No, metaphysics is still a science with a scientific method, even if at times it seems like it isn't.

How?

>>18043618
>What does salt taste like?

>>18043623
>metaphysics
>science

I'm not following, and how does your example relate to it.

>>18042860
Nope. Relativism is babby's first philosophy. Get gud and be like buddga and jesus. They can into absolutism.

>>18043263
Magick as defined by Crowley is what's 'real'
And magic was stage play, or 'fake'. It all just comes down to personal preference of how to spell it, i think Magick looks more edgy so I use it instead.

>>18043683
>i think Magick looks more edgy so I use it instead.

Thanks for the douche chills

>>18043630
The example means you're asking someone to explain something that's explanation is self-explanatory.
If you don't get it you're never going to.

Metaphysics is philosophy, it isn't empirical or scientific in any way. By definition, it talks about things that can't be observed or experienced, and thus can't be subjected to scientific study. That's why hard-nosed scientists criticize ideas like string theory and quantum multi-verse by calling them metaphysics -- there's no way to test whether or not they are true, so they aren't scientific theories so much as philosophical speculations.

Occult magic (Crowley's "magick," as opposed to stage illusion or folk superstition) is a collection of self-hypnosis (or self-programming) techniques which have been distilled from ancient mystery religions and mystical traditions. Crowley's magick was based on Hermetic philosophy and Raja-Yoga meditation, with some Kabbalah and a mish-mash of other mystical and occult concepts mixed in (mostly swiped from the Golden Dawn and cribbed from Blavatsky's Theosophy).

Crowley's stated intent was to was to try and turn magick into a respectable science, or at least to apply the scientific method to mystical practices. He called it "Scientific Illuminism," with the catch-phrase: "We place no reliance on Virgin or Pigeon. Our method is Science, our aim is Religion." He clearly failed to make it respectable, and if he made any scientific breakthroughs beyond using magick for self-programming, they were never published for peer review.

>>18043683
I know, but some practitioners who dislike Crowley refuse to use the "k"

some of it, yes. it might not even be metaphysics but rather physics that we don't currently define as such.