The Origins of Religion

[SHaYap]

segway :

I have David Bowie's ' Let's Dance ' playing in the background while I am looking at that ping pong gif ... its mesmerizing ~

~

[Parsec]

10 minutes ago, back to earth said:

The Japanese Art of War  ..... thats a good 'religious' book .

My sword practice ...... thats a very  'spiritual'  thing .   There is a spirit in a sword   .... good or bad  ....         

A;  " That's eastern BS religion intruding into a martial practice ! "

B ;  " No , its not religious, it is actually part of art of sword ." 

... no it isnt .....   yes it is  ...

 

 

Well, it's basically the difference between do and jutsu. 

[back to earth]

Aha!  There is no difference ! 

[Dhurfjooydig]

2 hours ago, Parsec said:

And my partner says I am pedantic!

I should show her this thread!

PEDANT:

1: a male schoolteacher.

2a: one who makes a show of knowledge

2b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

2c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching.

I am a pedant, by definitions 1. and 2c.  Pedantry was once a fine and highly respected art form and I do my best to do it justice. I have a great love of minutiae and specificity, and am usually oblivious that I'm annoying others until my partner gives me that look.   

[Kismit]

Little bit annoyed that work is getting in the way of my online life for the next few days. Will pop back in again when I've had time to read through the earlier essay property. I have a few more questions yet 

[eight bits]

Hmm. Buddhism, whether or not a construct of the modern Western mind, isn't even three thousand years old. That's far too recent  to find the "origins of religion."

It is old enough to observe that the "Western mind" could decline to distinguish philosophy, magic, science, religion and mathematics from each other. Pythagoras would be the poster child for that.

There's a thread about Isaac Newton nearby. He was a serious adept, into all those things Pythagoras was. It's harder to find people like that today. I think Carl Jung was, and that that accounts for some of the continuing interest in his work outside his own therapeutic community. W.B. Yeats was a little older than Jung, and except for his lack of practice in science, was reasonably "Pythagorean."

The larger trend is specialization. We're so into specialization that some people insistently distinguish magick from magic. Why? What if the point of a shaman's "tricks" was the same as a Zen koan? Is stage magic so incompatible with religion? Penn Jillette has as much to say about religion and the right way to live as Pope Francis does.

It is entirely possible that the foundational religious act is to take a vacation from yourself. Zen koans, stage magic, watching pots boil, channeling Jesus into a biscuit ... maybe they're all the same at root. The origins of that? It's more than possible that other mammals do it. It could be that people are just newcomers in a long line of religious-minded life forms.

Edited January 8, 2017 by eight bits
Confused Penn with Penn's Razor

[Parsec]

8 hours ago, back to earth said:

Aha!  There is no difference ! 

Not really. 

Drawing a parallelism (as inaccurate as it can be, being related to a different cultural environment), it's like the difference between episteme and techne. 

[back to earth]

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

...

The larger trend is specialization. We're so into specialization that some people insistently distinguish magick from magic. Why?

Because the terms have come to mean different things . Magic has the connotation of 'stage magic' .  And magick is easier to write and say than theurgy  , which does not describe what Magick actually is anyway.  I am sure there are  plenty of online sources to explain why the k was added . 

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

What if the point of a shaman's "tricks" was the same as a Zen koan?

What is the point of a Zen Koan ? 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

Is stage magic so incompatible with religion?

Not really. In religion, we are told that the magic trick occurred .  We believe in authority / confirmation / explanation  .

In stage magic we think we see that the magic trick has occurred . We believe in our sensory input.

 

 

[back to earth]

14 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

PEDANT:

1: a male schoolteacher.

2a: one who makes a show of knowledge

2b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

2c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching.

I am a pedant, by definitions 1. and 2c.  Pedantry was once a fine and highly respected art form and I do my best to do it justice. I have a great love of minutiae and specificity, and am usually oblivious that I'm annoying others until my partner gives me that look.   

 

 

[eight bits]

b2e

Quote

Because the terms have come to mean different things . Magic has the connotation of 'stage magic' .  And magick is easier to write and say than theurgy  , which does not describe what Magick actually is anyway.  I am sure there are  plenty of online sources to explain why the k was added .  

I already understand why the k was added, but thanks for the tip.

As I hope came across, whether the terms actually do refer to such very different things is discussable. In words of one syllable, it may be that the kay is part of the act.

For example, you don't think Crowley was a performer? Not at all, not even in part?

Quote

Not really. In religion, we are told that the magic trick occurred .  We believe in authority / confirmation / explanation  .

In stage magic we think we see that the magic trick has occurred . We believe in our sensory input.

Depends on the religion, depends on the trick and depends on the devotee. In any case, I recall Penn and Teller's report on the Indian rope trick as street performance. Being told was an important part of some people's experience of the trick, maybe as much as or more so than the people who thought they saw it.

Regardless, neither group ever experiences a rope doing anything other than what comes naturally to rope, with a little help from its natural friends. What use is the kay then?

One person's 'tell' is another person's 'oral manipulation of setting and set.' Manipulation of setting and set is an important part of stage magic (or stage anything). I'll take my chances that setting and set have their place in the allegedly "other" sort of magic, too. There is no hard and fast line here, no clear distinction to be made. What religion tells without art; what is a magic show except art?

Edited January 8, 2017 by eight bits

[back to earth]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

b2e

I already understand why the k was added, but thanks for the tip.

As I hope came across, whether the terms actually do refer to such very different things is discussable. In words of one syllable, it may be that the kay is part of the act.

For example, you don't think Crowley was a performer? Not at all, not even in part?

I think he was ' a  performer' ;  of 'Magick', 'street theatre' , poetry, and even a dancing troupe touring Russia , Crowley's  'The Ragged Ragtime Girls'  .   

- Unless you are referring to the sort of 'performance'  that the 'k' represents    . 

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Depends on the religion, depends on the trick and depends on the devotee. In any case, I recall Penn and Teller's report on the Indian rope trick as street performance. Being told was an important part of some people's experience of the trick, maybe as much as or more so than the people who thought they saw it.

Such things are trying to emulate 'siddhis'  , they are said to be a distraction to true Yoga (according to many teachers) and Magick (according to Crowley ) .

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Regardless, neither group ever experiences a rope doing anything other than what comes naturally to rope, with a little help from its natural friends. What use is the kay then?

To distinguish practice other than 'performance' .   Unless one considers some ritual as 'a performance' to persuade the self ( unconscious ) . 

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

One person's 'tell' is another person's 'oral manipulation of setting and set.' Manipulation of setting and set is an important part of stage magic (or stage anything). I'll take my chances that setting and set have their place in the allegedly "other" sort of magic, too

Of course , that is why magick uses  'magical correspondences ' in temple arrangement , 'tools' and construction of ritual.  . 

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

. There is no hard and fast line here, no clear distinction to be made. What religion tells without art; what is a magic show except art?

Nothing .... if one removes the k that gave the distinction between stage magic and theurgic magick in the first place . 

One has to understand the history of this sort of 'practice' .     For example ; the 'Cowboy Platonists' of Americas mid-west, who practiced 'magic' had no need of the things you outlined; their aim was to improve marital / sexual relationships, and children within the context of family life . 

https://newtopiamagazine.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/thomas-johnson-platonism-meets-sex-magic-on-the-prairie/

[GoldenWolf]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

what is a magic show except art?

deceit

de·ceit

dəˈsēt/

noun

noun: deceit; plural noun: deceits

1. the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.

   "a web of deceit"

   synonyms:

   deception, deceitfulness, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, cheating, trickery, chicanery, deviousness, slyness, wiliness, guile, bluff, lying, pretense, treachery

[back to earth]

[eight bits]

MC

Deceit connotes something about the intent of the person whose acts are so called. Not all departures from telling the truth are deceitful (Moby Dick is neither truthful nor deceitful). Magic needn't even involve telling. The cups and balls are performed. In principle, the performer could be mute, and leave entirely to the spectator the interpretation of the experience.

b2e

I suppose where we diverge is that for me, magic is a historical phenomenon and for you, it's something you have had or do have an interest in performing some kind of it.

From a historical perspective, magic is any effect that confounds the understanding of the observer. As such, it has always included natural magic, confoundment because the magician knows more than the observer. Natural magic is a spectrum, at one end of which the magician doesn't understand either, only how to realize the effect, and at the other end of which is stage magic, which the observer could understand if she took the trouble, but hasn't yet done so at the time of the performance.

Natural magic would also include

Quote

... some ritual as 'a performance' to persuade the self ( unconscious ) .

I am unpersuaded that there is any other kind of magic than natural magic, nor does the typical educated native speaker of English disagree with me. As such, I recognize magick as jargon or cant, a coined word whose meaning resides in an exclusive subcommunity of speakers. There would be no occasion for a non-member like me to use the word except when discussing that subcommunity within which the word is thought to refer.

That said, there also isn't much for a member of the subcommunity to discuss about the jargon with a non-member. "It's something we say." Why yes, it is, no question about that.

Edited January 9, 2017 by eight bits

[back to earth]

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

b2e

I suppose where we diverge is that for me, magic is a historical phenomenon

It isnt only an' historical' phenomenon .   Its still a current 'phenomenon'   , and many different types of it are practiced.

But if that is what it is for you , then that is what  it is . . . .   for you .  

 

Quote

and for you, it's something you have had or do have an interest in performing some kind of it. 

Interesting that you make declarations to do with my own perspective on it .     'Performance'  seems a loaded word. In the context I ( am still trying to )  explain, a better word is  ' practice ' .

Quote

From a historical perspective, magic is any effect that confounds the understanding of the observer.

What a limited self- definition !   It is, even in the past, much more than that .

Quote

As such, it has always included natural magic, confoundment because the magician knows more than the observer.

You keep using loaded terms ;  ' natural magic' included herbalism and early medicine .   Does the herbalist 'confound' the patient  because he has studied herbalism  and has a collection of  substances and preparations,  more than the patient ? 

Quote

Natural magic is a spectrum, at one end of which the magician doesn't understand either,

?    

As much as the 'scientist'    '  doesnt understand '  .  

Quote

only how to realize the effect,

Some 'understood' it to work via the 'doctrine of signatures' ... rightly or wrongly . Thats just one example . 

To be pedantic, yes you can say what you say, but on that level, it isnt  just 'magic' that does that ...... do we even know what gravity is or how it actually works ?  yet we use it in a zillion applications  every day . 

Quote

and at the other end of which is stage magic,

I could equally say that isnt magic , what is magic is natural magic and magick / theurgy   , what you are trying to make 'one end of the magical spectrum ' is actually 'conjuring' . 

Quote

which the observer could understand if she took the trouble, but hasn't yet done so at the time of the performance.

Natural magic would also include

Maybe you should read this   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_magic

Quote

I am unpersuaded that there is any other kind of magic than natural magic,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_magic

 " ...which deals with natural forces directly, as opposed to ceremonial magic, in particular goety and theurgy, which deals with the summoning of spirits.  "

Quote

 

nor does the typical educated native speaker of English disagree with me.

 

Wiki seems to disagree with you     -     regardless of whatever innuendo was attempted there  ^ 

Quote

 

As such, I recognize magick as jargon or cant, a coined word whose meaning resides in an exclusive subcommunity of speakers. There would be no occasion for a non-member like me to use the word except when discussing that subcommunity within which the word is thought to refer.

Thats because you lack education on the subject .   I thought you said you already knew why the 'K' was added ?  

One major  reason was to distinguish  theurgy, goetia, western mystery schools and initiation traditions as a valid system ... apart from conjuring and stage magic , as the term 'magic' had come to mean those things at the time .  

Now its swinging back the other way a bit , some people see magic as  theurgy and use the term 'stage magic'  - as you have been - to  highlight the distinction.

Quote

That said, there also isn't much for a member of the subcommunity to discuss about the jargon with a non-member. "It's something we say." Why yes, it is, no question about that.

 Its not just a 'sub community '   ..... if it is it extends back to people like Agrippa  ... not just some freaks on the internet  or some  thing that has been around 80 yrars or so . 

But, whatever .... think whatever you want you about  it . 

Edited January 10, 2017 by back to earth

[eight bits]

b2e

Quote

It isnt only an' historical' phenomenon .   Its still a current 'phenomenon'   , and many different types of it are practiced.

Oh, sorry. I missed the memo that history had stopped.

Quote

Interesting that you make declarations to do with my own perspective on it .     'Performance'  seems a loaded word. In the context I ( am still trying to )  explain, a better word is  ' practice ' .

OK. No offense meant. I'd guess that "practice" that would be the loaded one. Where I live, "performance" connotes the accomplishment of something, "practice" is silent on that.

Example (Woody Allen, Love and Death)

You're such a great lover, what's your secret?

Woody: I practice a lot when I'm alone.

Quote

What a limited self- definition !   It is, even in the past, much more than that .

I can see that this is something you believe. I can accept that. What's the hitch in your accepting that I don't, and so I seek neutral terms in hopes of maintaining a conversation?

Quote

You keep using loaded terms ;  ' natural magic' included herbalism and early medicine

And still does for some people. Those are facts; why do you call a reference to facts "loaded"?

Quote

Does the herbalist 'confound' the patient  because he has studied herbalism  and has a collection of  substances and preparations,  more than the patient ?  

That would depend on what and how much more, I would think. Even as I write this, in my own country, there are hoodoo workers offering herbal preparations for a variety of purposes. Most American educated native speakers of English would accept the following sentence as well-formed and true.

Hoodoo is a form of folk magic.

On information and belief, even Wiki acknowledges that. It simply must be true, then.

Quote

As much as the 'scientist'    '  doesnt understand '

As I've mentioned before, the distinction between science and magic (and religion and philosophy and mathematics) was not always made.

All definitions run up against limitations. Who accepts Clarke's dictum "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" also accepts that there is no definition of technology that categorically excludes magic and no definition of magic that categorically excludes technology.

Since I think that Clarke is right about that, I think that the impossibility rubs. I decline to apologize for being unable to do what cannot be done.

Quote

I could equally say that isnt magic , what is magic is natural magic and magick / theurgy   , what you are trying to make 'one end of the magical spectrum ' is actually 'conjuring' .  

Yes, you could. That is the very point of the kay which is used in your linguistic community. What part of that do you imagine that I don't understand?

Quote

Wiki seems to disagree with you

That's often a good sign.

Quote

Thats because you lack education on the subject .

I don't discuss my education, if any, on this site. A bit of Google-fu will reveal it, or its absence, of course.

Meanwhile, consider the possibility that my education is adequate for the purpose, and that we just happen to disagree. Or do you propose that to disagree with your opinion can only be because of ignorance? (In which case, what's your quarrel with that other Aussie fella?)

Quote

a valid system ... apart from conjuring and stage magic , as the term 'magic' had come to mean those things at the time .

That is your opinion, not a neutral fact. I accept your belief as your belief, I don't share it, however. No amount of word lawyering or wiki-woo will make anything "valid ... apart from." You have your view, I have a different view. That is the framework within which we might yet pursue a discussion. Pretending there's something wrong with holding a different view from yours prevents discussion.

Edited January 10, 2017 by eight bits

[back to earth]

I am not sure what it is you want to discuss. Any discussion with me re magic needs to understand the following distinctions  ; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(illusion)

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by back to earth

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, back to earth said:

I am not sure what it is you want to discuss. Any discussion with me re magic needs to understand the following distinctions  ; 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(illusion)

 

My ex used to call me Bonedinni the Great master of the disappearing bone trick ,now you see it now you don't.

jmccr8

[eight bits]

b2e

Quote

I am not sure what it is you want to discuss. Any discussion with me re magic needs to understand the following distinctions  ;

As I've already mentioned with respect to Special K, it is not an understanding that I lack, but rather membership in a linguistic community that believes that the distinction refers to something besides membership in that community.

What you seem to be holding out for is acceptance that the Wikipedia conceptions of the various terms are somehow impersonally binding on all speakers. They aren't. Wikipedia speaks for nobody except the last anonymous person to edit the page.

You are, of course, entitled to place whatever preconditions you like on your own conversations. Since I don't satisfy your prerequisites, it appears that we've finished up on this subject. Thanks for the discussion; see you out there.

[XenoFish]

I'm going to state something that a lot of people in the occult community will not agree with, but I've done a lot of that over the years. So if you don't like it whatever.

Stage magic is basically thaumaturgy. Illusionism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy#Magic

Each variant of magick has become something else. Herbalism evolved into pharmaceuticals. We can look at modern marketing as a form of sigil magick. Using images and meaning to create a change in consciousness. Spell work and affirmations are the same thing, just used under different setting. Same goes for prayer. Magick yes with the K is all about an intention change in consciousness. The occultist is basically a psychonaut. As s/he wants to explore their head-space. It's bigger on the inside. lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonautics

[eight bits]

Xeno

Quote

Thaumaturgy

Word of the day?

Well, yes, the Mathematical Preface is a real book.

https://archive.org/details/themathematicall22062gut

Dee was making the distinction between natural magic (marvellous Actes and Feates, Naturally, and Mechanically, wrought and contrived) and a hypothetical kind that was illegal, a capital crime, in his homeland if accompanied by injury (a Companion of the hellhoundes, and a Caller, and Conjurer of wicked and damned Spirites).

It's funny. This past summer*, JK Rowling gave away for free on her website a short story about an "American Hogwarts" (to promote her new film venture, set in the USA).

https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/ilvermorny

The heroine is depicted as needing to go from the Plymouth Colony to Mount Greylock (far inland, overlooking what is now the triple point of Massachusetts, Vermont and New York). She couldn't be a witch in Puritan Plymouth.

The hell she couldn't. Alchemy was highly esteemed in the Pilgrim Century (it offered the closest thing to a medicine that worked). So was astrology (planting, hunting and also a help with medicine). The local native shamans were well respected by the first English New Englanders. (The English theory of magic for Natives was that God allowed Satan to empower the shamans' performances, while Satan generously granted the shamans favors and didn't require them to worship him.)

Rowling's witches don't worship Satan or his minions. Her heroine could have stayed in Plymouth. (Well, except that she had made the crossing while pretending to be a boy, and that might have been fatally unsettling to the Puritans.)

Quote

Stage magic is basically thaumaturgy. Illusionism.

OK, with the understanding that "illusion" is being used in an unusual sense, as is, for that matter, "stage." As the Teller video posted earlier shows, there need be no illusion (everything Teller perceived, he perceived accurately; it was what he "filled in" apart from his perceptions that tripped him up) anymore than there need be a stage (Teller and the Egyptian were seated across from each other at a small table).

Stage magic is a lot like stage everything else, which is a lot like art in general. What is on offer is a representation. What makes a stage show "a magic show" is its emphasis on obscuring how the representation was achieved. Cats is a shamanic festival, based on a text by a Christian mystic, but nobody calls it a magic show, because the representation is transparent. You know, music, dance, metrical poetry, animal costumes ... nothing to do with magic, right?

Even then, there are "category benders." J.K. Rowling (writing with Jack Thorne and John Tiffany) has a play in London right now, based on the Harry Potter franchise (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child). It is a drama, but part of the attraction is that the stage effects, naturally, look a lot like a "magic show."

Quote

psychonaut

It is amusing that the Wonderful Wiki manges to get through the whole page without mentioning Carl Jung, even though its lead image is from The Secret of the Golden Flower, for which Jung wrote the foreword to the Wilhelm translation, which got Jung interested in alchemy, and which pulled him away from the Red Book. No mention of Giovanni Caputo or Tanya Luhrmann, either.

==============

* The one in the Northern Hemisphere. I write from a viewpoint. So shoot me.

[XenoFish]

Just curious what are you trying to get at 8 bits? I just wanted to drop my 2 cents in on the subject, but I'm thinking there is something more going on.

You and b2e have been going back and forth a bit on the subject, so am I missing something?

[eight bits]

Xeno

Quote

am I missing something?

Not that I know of. I had you in the back of my mind when the exchange with b2e was going on.

Meh. Sit back. Have a vid.

(I have no clue why they thought it was a good idea to split this number, but I think part II is offered when part I concludes.)

 

 

[StarMountainKid]

I agree it's not a good idea to separate life into conflicting compartments. Considering life as a oneness of harmony is accepting the way of nature, the natural flow, without separation from that natural flow of which we are enfolded within it.

True religion is this inclusion and is not in opposition to the whole, in my view. The religions mind is an acceptance of all aspects of what is true. What is true is a unity. We separate this unity into many disconnected truths, and when we choose one of these truths as our own, and consider other truths alien to our truth, the truth we choose over all others becomes a lie.

 

 

 

 

[XenoFish]

Religion was the first government.