Enough is Enough

When is Humanity Going to Get That We’re All in This Together?

Quantum Witchcraft

Posted by honestpoet on January 2, 2007

Keats, in his letters, wrote about something he called “negative capability.” It’s what makes some poets, some people, able to intuit some things that otherwise remain opaque to those whose certainty blinds them to reality. Negative capability is that awareness that one doesn’t know, that ability to admit that one doesn’t have the complete picture.

A lot of atheists lack this ability, so they can’t admit that life might have an aspect to it that can’t be reduced to simple, quantifiable matter. These are the atheists who deny the reality of free will, insist that it’s some sort of useful illusion. And most theists lack negative capability as well; these are those who are so certain that scripture covers it all that they can’t admit to the truth of evolution and the lack of a daddy-in-the-sky.

Myself, I’ve done my best to nurture my negative capability, and with it I’ve embraced a mystical atheism. Seems contradictory, and it should. I’m pretty sure that any deeper truth will carry with it some sort of contradiction; that our dualistic minds can’t understand the mixed-up nature of reality without embracing paradox. (In a discussion with any theist, pretty much all you have to do to get them to blow a gasket is bring up the fact that the existence of evil, ultimately, has to be laid at God’s door.)

Here’s some background. I’m an artsy-fartsy type, as you might have gathered. I’m a poet (and a published one, with awards under my belt); I majored in art before switching to creative writing. I garden. The beauty of the world holds me in thrall. I’ve long loved the work of Joseph Campbell. But I’m married to a scientist of the mind. He’s not only a biologically oriented psychiatrist, but a math whiz (and I mean really…the year he took his MCAT, he also took the test that math students take to get into grad school, just to see how he’d do, at the request of the math prof he used to hang out with to solve problems for fun, and he got the 3rd highest score in the nation.) He’s been explaining physics to me since we were engaged, back in college. And he’s continued to do so, as new things have been discovered. He’s also explained the work of Churchland and Dennett. (He’s an excellent teacher, able to grasp the pedagogy and explain it succinctly.) So our pillow talk often involves concepts that, well, most couples don’t get into. It’s been a real privilege. And it’s not one sided. I’ve taught him a lot about creativity, and about embracing mystery, and finding beauty all around.

So. A mystical materialism? Sure. A materialism that admits that there’s more here than what we can see. Modern physics bears this out. M-theory, which posits the existence of 11 dimensions to the multi-verse, holds that the universe is actually a single membrane, and that the 11th dimension is confluent with it in its entirety, i.e., that right next to every atom, embracing every particle, is this 11th dimension. And it’s this, in my mind, that allows for the existence of what, for lack of a better word, could be called magic. What if there’s stuff in the 11th dimension? It seems to me more than possible that something, not necessarily what we would recognize as a biological neural net, but something that, like a super-computer, could act like one, might unify the whole shebang. And as our universe has evolved, so has this entity that co-exists with us. Its nature is of course mysterious. But it could be intellegent. The universe, or the multi-verse, rather, could have some single intelligence.

If the universe is truly one, then every bit of it can communicate with every other bit, like cells in a single body. A well cast spell, then, would act like a neurological signal from your brain, say, to your hand. Quantum witchcraft.

But the idea that this great mysterious entity, this multi-verse, would have a human personality, jealous like Jehovah, wanting to be worshipped, is, for lack of a better word, silly. Mythologies are just stories. All of them. Some of them aren’t even good stories. But reality, now that’s pretty fantastic.

Advertisements

59 Responses to “Quantum Witchcraft”

  1. whig said

    Welcome, you have found God and called him Universe, quantum consciousness. And here we are.

    Evil, by the way, is just free will being expressed in opposition to goodness. You have free will to do what you think best, or worse, bearing the consequence.

  2. honestpoet said

    No welcome necessary, the universe and I are old friends.

    But the difference here is that I do not say I know. I say maybe.

    Folks saying they know anything are what’s gotten us here, this horrible, blood-letting mess.

    I’m a proponent of atheism because it’s what’s needed to balance out the other extreme. And because reality as I experience it defies description.

    See?

  3. whig said

    Perhaps we use different words while not meaning them as the other understands. Atheism, to me, means a definite answer, a positive belief in non-existence.

    You seem more of a zetetic to me, a skeptic who is open to new experience.

  4. honestpoet said

    Atheism IS a definite answer, one that I use with the intent of shocking theists out of their delusion of a personal, petty God who gives a shit about little things like human sexuality or modes of worship.

    Mysticism can be a real trap, without the sort of materialistic/logical underpinning mine has. Look at all those silly wiccans who, instead of worshipping one personal god, adopt a whole pantheon. (And I’m not saying all wiccans do this, but plenty do.)

    And yes, I am a skeptic open to new experience, but the term atheist still serves my purposes.

  5. Stuart said

    Snap on the poetry and love of gardening – my specialty is bonsai 😉

    There is much to be discovered still and anyone who thinks they have even come close is deluding themselves. A wonderful lay person’s guide to science, but more importantly scientific history is Bill Bryson’s A short history of almost everything. It is a wonderful collage of scientific explanation and humour – I still chuckle when I think that it was a woman (Henrietta Levitt) who discovered cepheid variables whilst the man who ran the show (women couldn’t join that particular club back then) was putting together a theory that the dark shadows on the moon were due to the migratory patterns of lunar insects.

    To whig:
    No she found universe and called it universe. The mysteries of the unknown don’t have to have a geriatric, homicidal, patriarchal warlord turning every knob and twiddling every wire. Were you paying attention?
    p.s. whig, why does it have to be a ‘him’?

  6. whig said

    I understand. You are trying to get attention. If you say you are a skeptic, people make no effort to take the argument of non-existence seriously, but simply try to overcome your disbelief one-sidedly.

    God is a word that people mean different things by, your own mental image of an external father-figure that mistreats his children is what I think you resist. Other conceptions of God may be fine to you, but often carry other names, like Nature or Universe.

    God is what you make of him, you are as much God as am I.

  7. whig said

    Stuart, I think my last reply to honestpoet is still in moderation as I am writing now, it responds in part to your question. God does not have to be a him, but to me it is most convenient to envision him in my own image.

  8. honestpoet said

    Envisioning the universal intelligence anthropomorphically is part of the problem. God to a white man is a white man, not a black man or a woman. So white men have felt free to subjugate the “other” as less children of god than they.

    So muslim men are so often horrible to their women.

    God is a stupid word, considering the connotations that it carries. Our language is alive and adaptable. There’s no good purpose served by using such a negative, outmoded term to describe something very different from what God means to 99% of people hearing it. That’s not good communication. I think you avoid adapting your language because you are afraid of being perceived as an atheist.

  9. Stuart said

    I understand. You are trying to get attention.

    – wow that is patronizing! – are you intentionally trying to be obtuse or do you really not like your views challenged?

    Tolerance whig, tolerance!

    God does not have to be a him, but to me it is most convenient to envision him in my own image.

    … er OK, I’ll leave that one to speak for itself.

  10. whig said

    Honestpoet, I wouldn’t argue that my conception of God is best for you. I won’t suggest that even the name God is the most helpful in all communication. It is a word, not a name, it implies only the fact that the consciousness is singular.

    That is a different question, and a difficult one to discuss without going into a lot of priors. But let me start with the fact that humans invent God, as I invented bread, though both pre-existed the invention. Each instance, each conception, is unique and as flawed as the person who makes it, and as perfectible.

  11. honestpoet said

    Bread did not exist before the first loaf was baked (though it probably existed for a while before someone came up with the word “bread”). And you never invented bread, you just baked it.

    And God did not exist, and does not exist, outside of the human imagination. And you didn’t invent God, either. That tired old idea has been around for a very long time. Too long, in my opinion, and that’s what I’m hoping to fix. It’s time that it died and left us free to evolve into whatever humanity can manage, dealing with reality and not wish-fulfillment.

    You’ve simply watered down the idea of God that you inherited, to make it more palatable, less obviously ridiculous.

    IF the universe or multi-verse has intelligence, it is in no way God.

    Are you a Platonist? Do you believe in some “other” place, some “heaven,” where things exist in their ideal state, and the physical manifestations are mere, imperfect imitations? Is this where God lives for you?

  12. Stuart said

    Giving credence to the idea of inventing God is a cop out in my opinion. The same could be said for the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Either God exists as in the Abrahamic texts or he does not – honestpoet’s idea of making God more palatable is a good one, the new agers have been doing this with the concept of heaven for a long time. I read many a book as a teenager where the afterlife (the bit after the long tunnel and white light) resembled some obscure English countryside.

    I would ask that whig go into “the lot of priors” – as is often the case when the argument is pressed for specifics they are vague at best and often rest on the laurels of information that is unfortunately but predictably not at hand.

    When the knowing of the entity that is supposedly God comes down to vacuous statements about:

    the fact that the consciousness is singular.

    a fact, even if it were true, no limited human intellect could possibly comprehend or the pulp first-year philosophy stating

    the fact that humans invent God

    ; I am afraid I quickly lose interest in the credibility of this conversation.

  13. Simen said

    Well, this doesn’t seem to be anything but admiration for the beauty of existence. This feeling isn’t reserved theists; anyone can have it. I like envisioning all of existence as a giant, beating heart – but it’s when you start taking it literally or define yourself by it that it becomes a problem. Of course the universe is’t literally a beating heart.

    Deeply religious people seem to define themselves by such metaphores – they think that because their idea of a God makes them feel good, it must be true. They also think that without this idea, they are nothing. What if someone started defining themselves by what they eat for lunch? It would be extremely stupid. “Without this sandwich, I am nothing.” Is that any worse than, “Without this god, I am nothing”?

  14. whig said

    Stuart, you seem angry, but I am not. I do things to get attention, too. Everyone does, even if unconsciously. We express ourselves in ways that others will notice and respond to. Nothing wrong with that or patronizing to observe it.

    Honestpoet, I don’t know what labels describe me. I do not consider myself a Platonist, but in the manner that things are brought into existence by the conscious planning of their design a chair may be said to reflect the intention of its designer. Does that carry enough meaning to convey a useful point?

    Priors — Human civilization is tied up in the discovery of agriculture and particularly in the making of bread. Every breadmaker is a creator, if he or she starts without a yeast from another source. Some breadmakers are very conservative and cautious, others are more liberal. As the bread is conceived and brought into existence by the food it is provided and the baker’s care, the loaves are delivered in accordance and the knowledge is shared.

    There have been many wars fought between civilizations, many breads, many breadmakers. It is good to bring this to an end, to share our knowledge of how to leaven. That’s a large part of what I am doing.

  15. whig said

    Simen, we don’t know what the universe “is” literally. We only know of what we perceive. One model is as good as another in the abstract, but some models are more useful than others.

  16. Stuart said

    I am sorry whig I still cannot see the correlation.

    The argument for your statement:

    I won’t suggest that even the name God is the most helpful in all communication. It is a word, not a name, it implies only the fact that the consciousness is singular. That is a different question, and a difficult one to discuss without going into a lot of priors.

    How bread may have been important to early society in no way answers your above statement.

    As for:

    There have been many wars fought between civilizations, many breads, many breadmakers. It is good to bring this to an end, to share our knowledge of how to leaven.

    What does that even mean? Here’s one “there have been many wars fought between civilizations, many hatmakers. It is good to bring this to an end, share our knowledge of how to make hats.” – excellent don’t you think.

  17. whig said

    Stuart, hats are unliving things. I have closed the book on my blog, it is all there for you when and if you want to read it.

  18. Michael (a.k.a. Snaars) said

    Hi. I saw your comments on “outside the box” and decided to visit. I enjoyed reading your blog. I’m curious about this statement:

    In a discussion with any theist, pretty much all you have to do to get them to blow a gasket is bring up the fact that the existence of evil, ultimately, has to be laid at God’s door.

    This claim is new to me – can you outline the argument for it, or refer me to a site that explains it? It’s new to me, and I’m a collector of sorts of theistic arguments, even though I’m an atheist myself. Or – this just occurred to me – is it akin to the argument that evil would not exist if god were omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent because he would know how to create a world without evil, would be able to do it, and would want to do it?

  19. honestpoet said

    Hi Michael. Sure: ask a theist why God created evil. He’ll say either that Satan created evil, to which you say, well, who created Satan? Or he’ll say, evil exists because God wants us to have free will, to which you ask, well, why couldn’t we make choices between two different good things? Either way, as you said, there’s no way God, as described, isn’t responsible for evil. But if he’s as loving as he’s supposed to be, then he wouldn’t, right? It’s impossible to justify, no matter how much mental gymnastics theologians put themselves and their readers through. To which a theist, of course, responds with something about faith and god working in mysterious ways, or some other such cop out.

    Either there is no daddy in the sky, or daddy’s a bastard.

  20. whig said

    Why does God have to be a daddy in the sky, again? I’m just trying to see why you need a strawman theist to argue with while ignoring those who hold far more reasonable views.

    Okay, we could call the “daddy in the sky” one aspect of God, but it’s little different from Sun-worship.

    I think consciousness is pervasive, and concentrated in points including stars like our own Sun, so it isn’t an invalid perspective, just incomplete. If you worship the Sun-aspect while disregarding the Earth-aspect, you might quickly learn that one does not survive on sunlight alone.

    Oh, as for free will, you would limit it to “good choices” then? That is not free will at all, it’s just a menu. People (and animals and even plants and the smallest microbes) have the freedom to choose even what to choose between, within the limitations of their physical constraints.

  21. whig said

    It’s worth reminding that Christ is an Earth-aspect. Priests who talk about heavenly God ought to remember that but seem strangely disbelieving in the idea that God could be walking among their own midst.

  22. whig said

    Thought experiment for you, Honestpoet. Suppose you could be God for one week. Seven days and seven nights. Suppose you were still yourself, but you could observe the world and say what you would change, say what you would do if you could, and it would be done.

    What would you do?

    Would you take a week and try it out?

    Or would you walk away?

  23. Michael (a.k.a. Snaars) said

    Thanks. I used to be a devout theist. As a philosophy major, I began to see more and more of the contradictions inherent in my beliefs. I remember one day sitting in my philosophy of religion class and it dawned on me that God was just a complete bastard! There is room in the universe for a lot of crazy things though … I refuse to be fanatical or dogmatic anymore about the ultimate things of the universe. We have enough problems right here on the earth. I just wish everyone else could realize that they don’t have all the answers that they think they do. Again, enjoyed your blog.

  24. honestpoet said

    Whig, what’s God to you, then? No metaphors. Try to explain what you believe.

  25. honestpoet said

    Michael, that’s excellent, your willingness to avoid dogma. I think that’s always a good thing. And thanks for the kind words.

  26. Michael said

    I can’t use words without metaphors, because all words are metaphors. God is language and communication and intelligence. God is all of us.

  27. honestpoet said

    (Did you change your user name?)

    That’s bullshit, and I’m calling you on it. Words aren’t metaphors, they’re symbols. As an actual poet, and not someone simply with a poetic penchant, I know exactly what metaphors are, and what symbols are, and the difference.

    Tell me, in as plain a language as you can, without making reference to any unrelated object like bread, what the heck “God” means to you. Is it a non-corporeal, pervasive force that inhabits the universe? Is it a person in another dimension? Is it the aggregate “soul” of humanity? Is it an egregore created by humanity that now inhabits the astral plane? What?

  28. Michael said

    Sorry for the confusion by the way, I am Michael that used to be whig.

  29. Michael said

    God is consciousness. “In the beginning was the word.” Call it poetry instead of metaphor, call it symbology, call it anything you like but it is what it is. Any description is simply incomplete. I am God and you are God and we just don’t all know it, all the time. Sometimes we remember, when we have to do something, and then we do it, and we tell others so they can do what they need to do.

    You want to change the world? You can.

  30. Michael said

    In physical manifestation, God is every microbe and every cell, of which every living thing is composed. God is free will, conscious choice, quantum selection. God is the universe and what is beyond the universe.

  31. Michael said

    The word for this is Panentheism, by the way,

  32. honestpoet said

    It’s pantheism, and I’m well aware of it, having embraced it before my transition to atheism.

    You would very much enjoy the work of Robinson Jeffers, I believe.

  33. Mike G said

    No, it is Panentheism, and in your arrogance you pretend to know when you do not. Wikipedia can educate you.

    Sorry if that seems harsh, but there is no truth in what you say.

  34. Mike G said

    (Changed my username to prevent confusion, by the way. Too many Michaels.)

  35. Mike G said

    Robinson Jeffers grew up where I did, a century earlier.

  36. Simen said

    According to Wikipedia, there’s a difference between panentheism and pantheism:

    Pantheism: Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( ‘pan’ ) = all and θεός ( ‘theos’ ) = God) literally means “God is All” and “All is God”. It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
    Panentheism: Panentheism (from Greek: πάν (‘pan’ ) = all, en = in, and theos = God; “all-in-God”) is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it.

    So panentheism claims that God is the universe and also something more, and pantheism claims that God is only the universe.

    Anyway, pantheism is a great metaphor, but it’s only that, a metaphor. It doesn’t reflect reality at all, at least not how I see it. The reason is that there are areas of reality from which we are causally disconnected, that is, they’re travelling away from us at a speed which exceeds the speed of light, and so our effects can never reach those areas. If the parts don’t “hang together”, so to speak, I don’t see how you could view it as an organism of any kind.

  37. honestpoet said

    Thanks for the correction. I was a pantheist. Panentheism is interesting, but still posits a god, which I think is an unnecessary and unjustified assumption.

  38. Michael (a.k.a. Snaars) said

    Pantheism is the belief that the universe and God are equivalent. Panendeism is the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God – which seems to align more closely with Michael’s stated beliefs, but I don’t want to speak for him.

    Michael already said he’s whig, but just for extra clarification I want to reiterate that I am not him. I am known as Snaars elsewhere in the blogsphere.

  39. Michael (a.k.a. Snaars) said

    Oops – sorry, for some reason I couldn’t see the last few comments before I wrote my last one. Didn’t know about the wiki article. Nevermind.

  40. Mike G said

    Simen, there are connections that are not detectable by our instruments, such as non-locality. Quantum interconnectedness is conscious, in a mesh of probabilities independent of time and space, and God lives in these in-betweens.

  41. Mike G said

    Honestpoet, do you believe in consciousness or do you posit a mechanistic universe in which you are just an automaton?

  42. honestpoet said

    “Quantum interconnectedness is conscious, in a mesh of probabilities independent of time and space, and God lives in these in-betweens.” So you say, MG. But this is an assertion that you can’t KNOW, not yet, anyway. You can say you know, but you can’t prove it, and, unless you lie to yourself, you can’t really know it for certain.

    I do believe in consciousness and free will; none of us are automatons, but that doesn’t prove the existence of a universal consciousness.

  43. Mike G said

    Honestpoet, how can you know what I know? And then to go further and accuse me of lying to myself? How unjust.

    If you are conscious, where does your consciousness arise? Some claim consciousness is only an illusion, after all, and you cannot prove it exists to one who refuses to look inwardly.

    Let me rephrase more nicely.

    There exists at least one consciousness. One name for this consciousness is God.

  44. honestpoet said

    Oh, Mike, nevermind.

  45. Simen said

    Consciousness is not an illusion, else we wouldn’t be discussing it. Free will is another topic.

  46. whig said

    Simen, I guess we could ask whether God has free will, or just an illusion. A sufficiently good “guesser” could predict the future well enough to seem to cause it, but this could be all an artificial intelligence, or a simulation in which we are players, with varying degrees of awareness of ourselves.

    It seems most practical to me to imagine that I have free will within the physical constraints I face. I choose, I think, and therefore I am satisfied. But if I cannot choose, then my illusion too is not a choice but compelled by whatever it is that my consciousness observes.

  47. Stephen said

    This is an interesting post, Honestpoet.

    I’m pretty sure that any deeper truth will carry with it some sort of contradiction; that our dualistic minds can’t understand the mixed-up nature of reality without embracing paradox.

    I am inclined to agree with you. I doubt very much that reality corresponds to anyone’s worldview.

    Although I am a Christian, I do not mean that all other truth claims must be subordinated to the Bible. I prefer to recognize that science’s critique of Christianity is legitimate at many points, while also maintaining that Christianity’s critique of modern Western society is likewise legitimate at many points.

    I hold these two worldviews in tension, and others as well. For example, I have also studied Buddhism a little, and it differs markedly from either of the other worldviews. I think wisdom arises from shifting vantage points and bringing alternative perspectives to bear on the same data.

    Negative capability is that awareness that one doesn’t know, that ability to admit that one doesn’t have the complete picture.

    This is what you say in the post. However, in the comments, you seem quite certain that the world would be better off without God. In my view, faith in a divine being tends to intensify people’s behaviour. Some people commit great evil in the name of God, it’s true; but others perform inspiring acts of selflessness in the name of God.

    Therefore it isn’t as easy as maintaining that the world would be a better place if the idea of God were eliminated. Perhaps you would benefit from more negative capability in this area. 😉

  48. honestpoet said

    Thanks for the comment, Stephen.

    I do feel pretty certain (though not totally) that we’d be better off without the idea of God. One can actually do good things because they’re good, and not out of some hope for reward or need to demonstrate reverence or humility or whatever. One of my favorite literary characters is Tarou, Camus’s atheist saint in _The Plague_. He sacrifices his life treating the sick (he catches it) not out of some religious impulse, but simply because it’s the right, the most human, thing to do.

    If we’ve got to wear labels, a more positive one I could hang around my neck is secular humanist. I think we’re capable of amazing things, without divine intervention, and I think that a large part of the problem with western culture (which certainly has some problems) is the concept of original sin we’ve inherited with the judeo-chrisitan perspective we’re steeped in (even the unchurched are saddled with it, by and large). The doctrine that insists we’re in need of redemption is a cruel thing to instill in a child. What a blow to our self esteem. No wonder so many feel the need to cling to their beliefs: without them to bolster their wounded self-image, they can’t imagine living well or happily.

    But in fact, after casting off the last remnants of belief, it was like I’d lost a weight I’d been dragging. A nice feeling. Like a born-again christian, I can’t help but imagine that everyone would enjoy this feeling.

    I think it’s important to be realistic about human nature, of course, and to acknowledge that evil resides in each of us. But so does good, and appealing to that doesn’t have to involve resorting to any mythology. Using logic, it’s very easy to reject evil, and promote right action.

    (I’ve studied buddhism, too, and found it a useful stepping stone away from my catholic upbringing.)

  49. whig said

    Logic is a good tool as far as it goes, but it is not a substitute for wisdom and experience. Those mythologies are moral lessons to help us understand how to apply ourselves for the benefit of humanity, or selfishly if we so choose, with some lessons on what the consequences will be when the story plays out.

  50. honestpoet said

    Literature works just fine for such a thing, whig. There are plenty of myths, esp. in the bible, that teach horrible lessons. I’d rather expose my child to Dickens than to most of the “holy” books I’ve read.

    (And wisdom is acquired by examining experience logically.)

    Religion still seems superfluous.

  51. honestpoet said

    At best.

    And clearly, sometimes, toxic.

  52. whig said

    Literature about God, however, is called scripture.

  53. whig said

    And you should not take any scripture on faith until you test it, that is my Thomist view.

  54. whig said

    Oh, it occurs to me to ask whether you would instruct your children not to read a religious text, even as literature?

  55. honestpoet said

    Actually, I’ve instructed my children to read scripture as anthropology. I think it’s important that they know what so many of their peers have had shoved into their poor little minds. And it’ll help them understand the pickle humanity’s in.

    But very little of it has any real literary merit.

    And I say that as a literary editor.

    And btw, literature about god is fiction, de facto. Scripture should be on the same shelf as poorly-written novels.

  56. whig said

    Honestpoet, your condemnation is dripping, I must say. There aren’t a lot of examples of literature from thousands of years ago that have survived. I find all of them fascinating examples of early civilization’s attempts to explain their consciousness. As anthropology, you ought to have more respect for those who came before and invented things you take for granted now. You may not know why it is important, but many generations of ancestors have preserved the stories in order to pass along knowledge that they thought was worth more than any treasure.

  57. whig said

    But of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not judge everyone by my own standard but by their own, and I do not hold against those who believe wrongly but do not take wrongful action.

  58. Interesting posts you have, especially this one. After seeing your comment on my blog, I had to stop by and check yours out. I’ll be doing more of it over time.

    As to the whole math and science aspect of the possibilities for wiggle room in the metaphysical department of life, I have a very interesting view of my own, which isn’t really all that unique perhaps, but I posted it on my blog in case you’re interested.

    http://errantmind.wordpress.com/

    Also, check out my philosophy page and you’ll see how I try to approach thinking. Doesn’t always work of course, as I’m all too human, but I try.

    Great blog. Am loving it. I’ll be checking it out from time to time.

    🙂

  59. maglut said

    This is a fantastic post. Really well written. It is always a pleasure to come across someone who takes the craft of writing so seriously.

    I love the connections that can be drawn between contemporary physics and ancient traditions. One instance is the ability of the human mind to affect probability. This is another example of what you termed “quantum witchcraft.” Since all of reality is composed of probability patterns on the subatomic level, and the human mind can influence probabilities, then the human mind can affect reality. This premise is how I believe magick works, regardless of your particular style or background.

    I find myself in agreement with your skepticism in regards to the god-figures of the Abrahamic religions. To think of an infinite, omniscient and omnipresent figure as jealous, vindictive, and petty is just plain silly. From my perspective, any god that is worshiped is really an archetype that embodies the virtues and traits that one wants to emulate. By attuning myself to the Christ image, I am trying to imprint upon myself the virtues of love, compassion, and forgiveness. If I needed some inner fire and strength of character, I could also attune myself to the archetype of Zeus, who is a god of leadership and power. Each of the gods is but a pale reflection of the one true Divinity, which is unknowable to us.

    Again, great post. I lok forward to reading more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: