Previous Entry | Next Entry

Occultism and Apophenia

  • Feb. 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 PM
FSM
Ever hear of apophenia? It is the perception of apparently meaningful connections derived from otherwise unrelated phenomena or data. Taken to its worst extreme, apophenia can be found amongst schizophrenics who believe they see patterns that support their delusions. Many such people report delusions of reference, where everything in the environment somehow becomes related to them personally, such as the television giving them direct messages. A more specific form of apophenia is pareidolia, which is the perception of significance derived from a vague and random stimulus, such as an image or sound.

Apophenia isn't limited to those with a thought disorder—it can exist in the "normal" cognitive range as well, with some evidence indicating that the lateral temporal lobes are somehow involved with the effect.* Further, high levels of dopamine might also play a part, especially when the person is predisposed to seeing a pattern.** It doesn't have to be religious in nature...who hasn't seen a face within a parking meter or tree bark? Indeed, this mechanism has long been a key to our survival as a species...it helps us recognize people, common objects, and landscape features. As we have become more sophisticated, it has allowed us to ascertain more subtle patterns, such as those found in the physical and social arenas (e.g. chemistry and language, respectively). It is a very powerful tool that continues to serve us well, not only in terms of survival, but also in the realms of both science and art.

A key human drive is the need for meaning, to make life about more than simple survival. Religion, in part, tries to serve this function, and for most people does so successfully. A much smaller but still sizable percentage of people look to occultism to fulfill their need for meaning, and for many years I was included in this number. Now that I've moved past occultism, I can look back and try to examine my experience with perhaps some objectivity.

One of the core mechanisms of occultism is the induction of apophenia, which it does via several conceptual models, such as Kaballah and the Tree of Life. By plugging in otherwise unrelated ideas and objects into such a model, a sense of meaningful connection is easily and quickly created. Of course, usually only already-meaningful ideas are plugged in, such as serpent or immortal, rather than less-meaningful things, like toilet or keyboard. The point here being that the model itself, when being used in this way, doesn't create the initial meaning, but provides a sense of greater import and external agency. To be clear, this is not the only use of these models, but I'm just talking about one practice that I myself used and see others doing.

A feature of occultism is the promise of finding the Big Secret. Part of doing so can involve practices that use trance or imagination to create the experience of evoking spirits, invoking deities, or visiting ultra-terrestrial or non-material planes. However, much of the "information" that is gleaned from these experiences seems to be transmitted in the code of symbolism, which is then processed through conceptual models to provide a sense of understanding. As the Philips article points out, when people seek patterns in otherwise unrelated data, they will find them. And I can say first hand that the experience of this, of the sense of having discovered or been made privy to some deeper spiritual reality, is intensely satisfying.

In itself, I see no problem with this—it feels good and can, for a short time, fulfill the need for meaning. However, things get sticky when occultists begin assuming that what they've experienced connotes some kind of objective, external reality or change in themselves. It is especially problematic when the occultist is seeking experience to either confirm or create a belief of unique personal eminence, because he will inevitably find it. Practice improves the ability to create and retain complex patterns (especially when certain symbols are already in mind), promoting the sensation of increased understanding, and it is all too easy to develop a narcissistic attitude regarding one's superior "wisdom" and spiritual "knowledge". The "I-know-something-you-don't-know" mindset is seductive and sadly common in the larger occult population; I succumbed to it myself for a time.

I will not say that occult practice cannot produce for some people a valuable and meaningful relationship between the occultist and the universe. When used to explore one's internal world, such practices can indeed produce useful psychological insight as well as develop useful skills, such as mindful discipline. Further, certain occult practices are excellent at promoting a sense of interconnection between all things, which can help develop the valuable awareness of being a meaningful part of culture and nature.

But when apophenia really sets in it can become counterproductive. One manifestation in occultism is the illusion of change at a distance, which is supported by the ability to invent connections between unrelated phenomena. Again, when ritual is done to prime the mind to act in desirable ways, it can be beneficial (e.g. doing a "get a job" ritual that results in a calmer and more confident demeanor during an interview). But when one believes that objective change is possible at a distance (in space or time), and comes to depend upon it, then it can result in neglecting one's actual ability to be an agent of change in life.

I believe that the stereotype of the occultist who is socially awkward, behind on rent, and works at a miserable job exists for a reason. It is probably common for people who feel ineffective and inadequate to be the most attracted to occultism, which promises great power and wisdom. And because of our natural ability to seek patterns, almost anyone can "succeed" at it. When this is done as a platform leading to an increased sense of agency, then occultism can be beneficial—when it leads to narcissism and a belief that the powers and knowledge are objectively real, then it can too easily exacerbate the underlying problems.

I do think that occultism in general can provide a marvelous metaphorical language. This is likely why many folks of an artistic bent are also attracted to occultism. Also, we want to feel special, and occultism makes it easy to feel that way. But the occult universe has no reality outside of the mind. It is a human construction which largely uses the language, perspectives, and scientific understandings of people who lived centuries or millennia ago. This gives occultism an exotic, substantial aura that is attractive to many. Also, certain occult tools, such as Tarot, can provide fantastic projective tools for digging out deeper elements of the personality making them available for examination.

On the whole, I've come to the conclusion that occultism has limited utility in developing a mature sense of self and meaning. While it can play a beneficial transitional role, as it did for me, in the end occultism's tendency to induce apophenia prevents seeing actual patterns in the environment and within the self, overcoming any issues of inadequacy, developing personal agency, and living a fully genuine life. Moreover, occultism doesn't solve real problems, whether global, social, or personal.

I believe we can borrow from the tradition of occultism to help provide some romance and adventure that can give spirituality a sense of aliveness, depth, and vibrancy. Also, the idea that spiritual development requires refining the ability to see clearly plus the willingness to explore ideas and experiences that are not immediately apparent is certainly a valuable one. But it is no longer useful or reasonable to insist that there is a Big Secret out there whose discovery is only awaiting the right awareness of the Grand Pattern. The old adage says it best—life is not a mystery to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.


* Bell, V., et al. (2007). Relative suppression of magical thinking: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cortex, 43 (4):551-7.
** Philips, H. (2002). Paranormal beliefs linked to brain chemistry. New Scientist, July 2002.


Originally published at Thelema Philosophia.

Comments

[info]knight_of_pan wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
93 Ash. I can see where you're coming from. But, I think I have to disagree in part. Sure, if it's become the norm to see everything as not connected and someone sees things as connected, then yes, they are viewed as having the disorder. However, that doesn't answer the question as to whether things ARE connected or not, but rather how the majority view things.

I agree that attaching a subjective meaning to things can be dangerous. Crowley said that himself in Liber O I believe it was (didn't stop him from falling into that trap himself though). There are plenty of people out there that seem to be positively disconnected to reality. However, that only leads us to question if we are so sure WE are sure what reality is. Quantum physics, the M theory, etc. cast doubts upon that.

I don't think there are any hard and fast answers. You muddy the line quite a bit when you separate occultism from religion. THAT delineation is quite blurry and not set in stone. What is true for occultism is often true for all religion in general...occultism being basically a subset of religion.

While I commend you for your choices and think you're doing a great service for yourself, I still don't think you've found THE answer. I really don't think we ever really escape the "this is my truth and it works for me" stage...at least in this part of our development. In other words, I still think you're in danger of attributing subjective reality to your findings.
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 09:48 pm (UTC)
What is true for occultism is often true for all religion in general...

I didn't exclude religion in general, but taking on that entire realm would have been too unwieldy. Plus, I didn't mention magick or Crowley...it is possible to talk about occult practice in almost any religion. To reiterate, I'm talking about the practice of seeking Big Secrets to things through the conceptual connection of otherwise unconnected things. I give pros and cons to this practice, the former being grounded in self exploration and development and the latter being grounded in narcissism and delusion.

I still don't think you've found THE answer.

I'm not sure what answer you think it is I'm offering...
[info]starlancer wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)
I agree that attaching a subjective meaning to things can be dangerous.
....
In other words, I still think you're in danger of attributing subjective reality to your findings.


Don't you mean objective meaning and reality? Attaching subjective reality is much of what occultism is about, and I read Ash as saying just that and not having much problem with it as long as one doesn't confuse it with the objective.

My own understanding is a bit different than either take, but I don't really want to hash that out now.
(no subject) - [info]knight_of_pan - Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:35 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]starlancer - Feb. 3rd, 2008 01:28 am (UTC) Expand
[info]keter_magick wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2008 11:58 pm (UTC)
Non Attachment <=> True Seeing
Pardon me while I go meta to this conversation. There is a level at which objective and subjective observations merge and any question of perceptual filters dissolve. That state is one of pure observation, which is achieved only when one is completely detached and emotionally neutral. This is a difficult state to master, and one that can only be done when flat sober and in good emotional and physical balance (at least this is true for me). It makes a tremendous difference in perception, however, and I think it may eliminate the problem of perceiving-the-believed (by whatever name).

Secondly, no action(change)-at-a-distance? Will IS, vehemently, or it is not. There are no conditional limitations. To be without will is to be dead. To be alive is to act and create change in all axes of one's being - it cannot be helped, but it can be guided by the conscious, directed will. Study Lorenz attractors, the EPR Paradox/quantum entanglement, and mass consciousness experiments like the Princeton EGGs. Science is poised to prove that change-at-a-distance is not merely possible, but actually is built into and necessary to the whole of what we perceive as reality. Make of that what you will.
[info]anubislux wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 09:41 pm (UTC)
it is all too easy to develop a narcissistic attitude regarding one's superior "wisdom" [and the] "I-know-something-you-don't-know" mindset [that is] sadly common in the larger occult population; I succumbed to it myself for a time.

For a time? It's great to see that you finally overcame this.

:/
[info]soror_daath wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 09:45 pm (UTC)
YES!

Oops, did I yell that too loudly? ; )
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:00 pm (UTC)
Let 'er rip!
[info]mobyjane wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 09:54 pm (UTC)
I will not say that occult practice cannot produce for some people a valuable and meaningful relationship between the occultist and the universe. When used to explore one's internal world, such practices can indeed produce useful psychological insight as well as develop useful skills, such as mindful discipline.

I think this idea deserves more than a passing mention. For me, occult tools are neutral, and their "utilty" depends upon how they're used. I don't personally find any meaning in gematria, in part because the connections between numbers and letters feels truly random to me as a modern English speaker. But other tools are less about "plugging in" meanings than about helping us do the hard work of making meaning, and those seem worthy of further considertation.

For example, in clumsy hands tarot and tree of life tools can be used to predict wish-fulfilling outcomes, like new jobs or future love affairs. Or, at worst, they can be used to define (and hoard) the Big Secret. But a thoughtful practitioner can use these same tools in the role of an artist or a healer (much like a psychiatrist uses similar tools), to articulate for themselves or others unconscious processes and bring them into the light.

In classic occultism the pattern-generating imperative is based on the concept of 'As above, so below." You and I might not find value in reading tea leaves to predict the future, but we can use the projective tools to gain insights about ourselves. In these cases, we're seeking self-knowledge, or as I like to say, "As without, so within."
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:10 pm (UTC)
"As without, so within"...that's beautiful.

I did try to say that "occultism" can be beneficial when it's used for the purpose of self-exploration and to promote thinking about meaning and connections. However, thanks for offering a clearer picture of this stance...you said it a lot better than me.

I also agree that occult practice can be used to create meaning, as can nearly any religious/spiritual practice. The catch in occultism is that it is often geared towards the external, towards finding the Answer Out There. For example, the idea of "astral traveling" to go out to find clues as to the Big Picture. However, when such trance-work is done with the understanding that it is digging up non-conscious material, it can potentially be used for greater self-understanding. It is all in the approach one chooses to adopt.
(no subject) - [info]mobyjane - Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:25 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]knight_of_pan - Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:33 am (UTC) Expand
Gee ash... - [info]rawmr - Feb. 8th, 2008 02:16 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]iamsquid wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:25 pm (UTC)
Success is Thy Proof
So occultism isn't for yoo, that's fine. Occultism isn't for everybody. Being in a rock band isn't for everybody. Proctology isn't for everybody. If anything ultimately matters (and I'm not sure that it does), it is the human experience that counts.
[info]baal_kriah wrote:
Feb. 11th, 2008 10:32 pm (UTC)
Re: Success is Thy Proof
Proctology is for everybody. A lot of people just don't realize it :-)
[info]sebastian_lvx wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:41 pm (UTC)
Articles like this make me really happy. If for no other reason than it helps to further critical analysis and observation of the religious/spiritual experience and grounds them within rational frame-work. I'm all for the 'art and science...' when it actually presents itself as an art or a science.
[info]elnigma wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC)
Who do you think is doing things right? Who do you think teaches wisdom? Who are some specific people you admire most?
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:00 am (UTC)
You are going to hate me for this...but wisdom can only be taught to the self by the self. There are so many sources of knowledge and inspiration out in the world, it is impossible to say with any integrity which is more valuable than another. It is all about where one is at the time, what one's level of personal development is, as well as the nature of one's natural talents and preferences. I myself am inspired by many people...lately, I've been especially interested in the ideas of Dan Siegel, Martin Seligman, R.W. Emerson, and Mircea Eliade.
(no subject) - [info]knight_of_pan - Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:37 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]elnigma - Feb. 3rd, 2008 01:51 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 02:07 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]iao131 - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:25 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:36 am (UTC) Expand
[info]netjerikhet wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC)
I believe that the stereotype of the occultist who is socially awkward, behind on rent, and works at a miserable job exists for a reason. It is probably common for people who feel ineffective and inadequate to be the most attracted to occultism, which promises great power and wisdom. And because of our natural ability to seek patterns, almost anyone can "succeed" at it.


I very much see this and agree with you 100%. If one was a varsity star quarterback, I doubt very much that that person would be drawn to the occult. Why should he (or she)? They are popular and people like them. It is easier for socially awkward people to withdraw into themselves and say, "Well, I can't be good at kickball. But I will rub my crystal wand and put a curse on those jocks." There is no quantitative disproof of a persons alleged occult powers. When I pitcher sucks at throwing the ball, everyone knows that he sucks.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule as with any rule.

[info]mobyjane wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 10:57 pm (UTC)
"Well, I can't be good at kickball. But I will rub my crystal wand and put a curse on those jocks."

Now this made me smile. Big.
(no subject) - [info]netjerikhet - Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:03 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]staghuntress - Feb. 4th, 2008 06:32 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]panshiva wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:07 pm (UTC)
What You Believe
What do you mean by "Occultism?" Many people have labeled Imaginal and Depth psychology and the cult of Jung a form of Occultism. Similar labels have been tossed at Yoga, meditation, ect.... Are you biasing against a particular thread of occultism here? What are the parameters of your critique?

Also, regarding your claims for action at a distance, what do you think about all of the work being doing at places like the Institute of Noetic Sciences on healing at a distance, remote viewing, ect...


Where does the work of Parapsychologist Charles Tart fit into your critique?

How do you reconcile Jung's work on Synchronicity with apophenia?

Before you make totalizing claims, it might be nice if you reviewed the literature as well as defined your terms in a little tighter manner.
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:27 pm (UTC)
Re: What You Believe
Your questions are valid and interesting, of course, but I am writing for a general audience on LJ, not writing an academic thesis. This essay is more of a discussion as to my current opinions.

My review of the literature is one of the primary catalyzers for my current position...but the literature I'm reading might be different from yours. If you are satisfied with the works done by INS and parapsychologists, then that's fine...I am not. To be blunt, what I've read seems like hogwash and pseudo-science. I'm not going to go out of my way to refute them, because others are more interested in doing that...I'm sure you can find their arguments online. My own interest is rather in pointing out some of the flaws I see in occultism (defined pretty well here), especially in terms of my own experience and what I've seen around me.

Regarding Jung, I am not an expert on his theories, but most of his more "out there" theories don't seem well-grounded in science, even though they can be fun to read. I do not believe in Synchronicity, except perhaps as an illusion resulting from normal apophenia.
Frames - [info]panshiva - Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:57 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Frames - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:11 am (UTC) Expand
Ground - [info]panshiva - Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:23 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Ground - [info]knight_of_pan - Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Ground - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 01:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Ground - [info]panshiva - Feb. 3rd, 2008 02:31 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Ground - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Ground - [info]iao131 - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:30 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Ground - [info]rawmr - Feb. 8th, 2008 02:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: What You Believe - [info]baal_kriah - Feb. 12th, 2008 06:59 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]goatlove wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:24 pm (UTC)
Will produces. The mode of engaging with "reality" you're here espousing is, ultimately, nihilism. It's the elimination of agency, sovereignty and will as the locus of creation, passing that responsibility on to some externality, and approaching the world as an act of consumption. This is not to say that making shit up isn't usually just making shit up, but reality is a creative action, not something to be merely understood and analyzed. One must also foment that production to make it real:

"So that thy light is in me; & its red flame is as a sword in my hand to push thy order."
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:48 pm (UTC)
Hm...I don't think you're really responding to my stated positions. I'm clearly saying that the responsibility for meaning (or "sovereignty of creation" if you will) lies with the individual. Also, I nowhere made the claim that there are no meaningful patterns in the universe, which would indeed be a nihilistic stance. Rather, I'm claiming that one does not need to invent patterns using archaic systems in order to apprehend them...and that, in fact, too much indulgence in them can prevent such apprehension. Human agency is a core interest of mine, both psychologically and spiritually, and I'm actually arguing that occultism can potentially reduce it when too much emphasis is placed on external powers and secrets. I strongly agree with you that life is an active, creative process...which is why I nowhere claimed otherwise. I'm rather confused as to how you drew your conclusions here...
(no subject) - [info]goatlove - Feb. 3rd, 2008 02:43 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:12 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]baal_kriah - Feb. 12th, 2008 07:30 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]noxenla wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:40 pm (UTC)
As usual, your words are interesting and appear well thought out. Your communications are always stimulating and have an aspect with which I think I see a point I can say "yeah, buddy" to and other aspects I can only find dubious.

I regret to say I detect an amazing randy smell, if in terms which would be quite beyond him. His idea of science is that if he can show how someone can fake a thing, it means the thing is fake. While you decry the seeking the answer thing you appear to represent that you have found the answer. From my standpoint, you have fallen under a corner of Choronzon's tricks and succumbed to the idea that if you place a "scientific" terminology on something you have changed what it is. That does not in any way invalidate the ideas you have of how the occultists can fool themselves, it just means that that is not necessarily the whole deal of occultism.

To the extent that this is another step upon your way, I applaud it and would not divert you from your path . I do, however, very seriously and humorously believe that this backing off from the "all is meaningful" state of consciousness is not a next step on the path of the tree but a temporary hesitation at the brink. The fact that everything is meaningful and connected is part and parcel of crossing. The analysis proffered is an excuse for not going through to the other side.

Schizophrenics are not wrong in thinking that all is a message to them or meaningful and connected. They reach the level of dysfunction only when assuming it is of universal truth in everyone else's reality, that others are ONLY representations of the Schizo's own projected universe and not, as I believe, star centers of their own all is meaningful universes.
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 2nd, 2008 11:52 pm (UTC)
...backing off from the "all is meaningful" state of consciousness...

Ah, but I'm not backing off from that position. I'm not talking about meaning, per se, I'm talking about ascribing objective reality to invented patterns using archaic conceptual models for the purpose of discovering the Big Secret.
(no subject) - [info]knight_of_pan - Feb. 3rd, 2008 01:06 am (UTC) Expand
[info]shepjoe wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 12:20 am (UTC)
AH
I have clients who make amazing connections- sadly some of these connections leads them to not taking their medications- or going on mono diets and getting sick- or accumulating mass aamount sof deabilitating fear.

I have seen many connections with the visions of schizophrencis, artists and magicians - and seen people taking things as truth and actual when such and such a "deity" contacts them with a message

I have to conitnously remind a client of mine that these "Truths" are not what everyone understands to be true-only him and only for that day- usually and hopefully-When he states that he must do something about it- or contact the Police about it- or call 911 on his voices- thats when the panic sets in for the individual- I have to remind him that these things are his "own" ideas connected or not and need not be acted upon.

Did you know that Ostridges fuck greyhounds because of Jim Morrison's third nipple?
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 01:53 am (UTC)
Re: AH
I suspect that it takes working with people who suffer with psychosis to really grasp what I'm saying as something real, rather than as an abstract argument. At the same time, I'm not a postmodernist...I do think that there is an external reality independent of my subjective experience of it. There really are patterns out there in the manifest universe and it is possible to explore them and sometimes to be involved in them. I currently define truth as arising out of the interplay between external reality, internal schemas, and subjective experience. What is out there is already so amazing, so surprising, and so infinitely mysterious, I see little practical reason to invent causal patterns. And since there are no practical uses for it, I surmise that the motivations are psychological, as I outlined in the post.
Re: AH - [info]shepjoe - Feb. 3rd, 2008 02:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: AH - [info]ashkosis - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: AH - [info]shepjoe - Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:42 am (UTC) Expand
Re: AH - [info]baal_kriah - Feb. 12th, 2008 07:45 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]omegabaphomet wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 01:15 am (UTC)
As your fellow Time Lord I happen to know that behind your clever disguise as a mere mortal etic scientific observer, you do indeed continue to be a Master of Matter, Energy, Space-Time and Dimension. J'acuse, monsieur!
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 02:14 am (UTC)
Shhh! Quiet or I'll sic K9 on you!
[info]aq777 wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:37 am (UTC)
Yes and
> The old adage says it best—life is not a mystery to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.

Life is a mystery to be experienced!
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 03:38 am (UTC)
Re: Yes and
Mystery is an experience to be lived!
[info]knight_of_pan wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 08:36 am (UTC)
You know, I'm glad you do these things Ash. Whether I agree with your arguments or not, you always seem to come up with things that make people think and talk. I think that's truly important and this re-examination will help keep people from getting stuck in dogmatic ruts and keep things fresh
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 09:03 am (UTC)
This is perhaps the greatest compliment anyone here could pay me. Thank you.
[info]omphalos111 wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 10:55 am (UTC)
Decided to mull over this for a night before replying. You say you are not writing a thesis, so there is no use in pointing out that you have oversimplified vastly your conclusions gained from said literature as well as engaged in the fallacy of exclusion. Instead I will try to be short and agreeable instead.

I disagree that all results in Magick can be dismissed as a result of apophenia but I agree that the underlying factors plays a large role in much of the symbolical work we engage in. However I don't think this invalidates it as a place of intersubjective truth, instead I think it only serves to underscore the importance of critical analysis and frankly that the Great Work is simply not accomplishable by most people, since they neither have the self discipline or even the faculties necessary for it. The occultist with his life in shambles above is direct evidence for this.

I have also noticed that our community seem to directly pander or sometimes even nurture this delusional behavior and though I have seen many people in the occult community that I regard little better off than those I encounter in my clinical practice and how they progressively have gotten worse as a result of engaging in it I am still not convinced that this is not an example of engaging reversed causality if one concludes that occultism with it's connected practices are the result of it.

That being said and perhaps even for exactly the same reasons, I do think that it is important that people know about things like apophenia, so take it for what you like, but I do appreciate you bringing it up.

Edited at 2008-02-03 11:18 am (UTC)
[info]ashkosis wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2008 06:26 pm (UTC)
Where I stand currently...I think of occultism/magick like art—it can provide experiences that feel meaningful. When I fully engage in looking at paintings or reading a wonderful novel or playing music, I find it enriching and fulfilling. Further, those experiences broaden my sense of connection with the world while also providing greater cognitive complexity, all of which is highly valuable and all based on the mind's ability to detect and form patterns. Occult practice can potentially provide those kinds of experiences.

But art is art. The experience of it is subjective, even though the lines, colors, words, and notes are the same. Occultism is, generally, far more abstract and arbitrary than art. Employing things like gematria and abstract symbol-sets requires that the practitioner engage in manufacturing patterns. As I pointed out, that activity can be both fulfilling and beneficial...but limited. Just as art (esp. literature and painting) is a reflection of reality, so are occult models, but even further removed because those models are grounded in very old conceptions of the physical and spiritual universe...the four elements, the celestial spheres, and most of the other constructs were not metaphors, but actual theories of how the world worked. So now we can participate in the translation from archaic pre-science to modern spiritual metaphor, which can be an interesting activity, but doesn't have any basis in reality, just as Escher's architectural drawings cannot be used to construct an actual building [sorry for stealing your metaphor