Defining Magick III

[blade_bunny]

In my last post I described magick as an exploration of certain questions such as the nature of consciousness, free-will and in general topics traditionally considered the domain of religion. This is to draw a line between what I call magick and other practices which we might call mysticism, religion, or witchcraft that do not have knowledge as a

Comments

[xeyeofhorusx]

Science is a process, not a particular set of beliefs.

So in what domain does the belief "Science is a process" properly apply? If science requires no particular beliefs, this would include beliefs about the process that constitutes what we call science. I do not necessarily disagree with this assertion, and yet, unless we can accurately contextualize the relationship of our beliefs about science to the activity itself, we have little hope at utilizing the benefits of the knowledge science can provide with the self-awareness that wisdom requires. In fact, we could easily act just like a Scientismist - ie those who place their faith in science - and not even recognize our behavior as inherently irrational as any other religious person.

To to plato or aristotle who did not value experiment and observation as a method of knowledge

This seems a pretty broad generalization to me. What leads you to believe this?

[blade_bunny]

> So in what domain does the belief "Science is a process" properly apply

Choose your own adventure

[xeyeofhorusx]

After reading your responses to me I must again recommend that you play around with E-prime and de-nominalizing abstract nouns

Re: Choose your own adventure

[blade_bunny]

Thank you. I will look into it. Linguistics is a big topic on my to-study list. Chomsky and Derrida are a couple authors in particular where I've got the books and need to make time and start reading. Are there any particular books on theory/practice of e-prime you would recommend?