If other comments appear on Kraig's blog that merit a response, I will continue to post there -- assuming that Kraig allows my comments to be published. Otherwise, I can continue the discussion here with any interested parties.
Full commentary on the discussion will likely be posted up sometime next weekend, so keep checking this space.
My rejected post appears below:
DMK writes: “My friend, do you not see that this critique is splitting you open: why do spells when they’re only pretend? How can you both believe and not believe in magic? Why are you wasting your time doing only “pretend” things.”You revealed earlier that you have trouble distinguishing between the concepts of actions done in private and claims made in public. Now you reveal that you have difficulty distinguishing between the act of performing rituals for a purely psychological effect and the act of performing rituals with the intention of causing supposed external “changes” in reality. Your confusion is consistent with someone who cannot explain how to distinguish between rituals that cause effects and rituals that just seem to cause effects.
Hopefully, I won’t have to explain the infamous ass/elbow distinction to you next.
DMK writes: “you haven’t done the work […] Los, where are you? Crowley has beginning exercises that were filled with developing self-knowledge. Have you been through them?”
As ever, when occultists can’t address my arguments, they try to turn the conversation to distractionary speculation about me. If you’re really curious about my experience with Thelema and magick, you can ask me on my blog. If you’re not curious enough to ask me there, then I’ll assume you don’t really want an answer. Either way, stick to the topic here: your ability – or lack thereof – to demonstrate that your claims are true.
Vinncent writes: “And, as to the majority of LOS’s points, you imply that there have not been any positive experiments under laboratory conditions exploring the interaction of consciousness remotely interacting with reality. Most of it is still considered “fringe science”, despite sound scientific methods and results being published in respected peer-reviewed journals.”
Well, my focus on this thread has been entirely on claims made by Donald. The research you bring up, even if its claims are all true – which, I’m sure you would agree, is at the very least debatable – doesn’t enable us to evaluate the specific claims we’re talking about here.
Donald’s been claiming that people can do a ritual that will make it more likely that they will come up with a certain amount of money in a certain time frame. That’s a testable claim, one that makes predictions about reality that can be measured and verified. A specific claim like that can’t be confirmed by general research into the possibility of consciousness remotely interacting with reality.