Psionics vs Magic

[Ci Celli Ddu]

I'd like to consider these two quotes on Psionics from Wiki:


Although some claim that any energy that can be manipulated solely by the mind is considered psi, others contend that there are distinctions that can be made between energy forms. Common distinctions are between 'life energy', 'earth energy', and psi energy. Those who make these distinctions usually do so on the basis that the different energies have a different 'feel' to them, and thus can be separated. Common ways energy can be manipulated is by generation, changing direction or velocity, density, and shape. This is done through intention coupled with intense focus usually also including the use of visualization for beginners. Additional suggested mechanisms for manipulation of such energies include connections with the subconscious mind, which may be aided by special breathing techniques.


Psionics are usually claimed to be strictly mental abilities which do not include any magic or rituals. The main source of power is from the mind, and many supposed practitioners draw a distinction between psychic abilities and spirituality. However, there are also those who believe that psychic and spiritual or mystical abilities are related, or even indistinguishable

Just where does psionics end and magic begin (or vice versa)?

[Aodh]

I'd like to consider these two quotes on Psionics from Wiki:





Just where does psionics end and magic begin (or vice versa)?

Knowing that members of the Psion Guild "updated" that article, they would likely go crazy on you and claim it was the type of energy involved and that you fry your psychic capabilities by doing magic! Knowing how much of a crock of bull that is, I say it all depends on how you define magic and how you define psionics.

Personally, I have always made the distinction for myself that psionics is magic but magic is more than psionics (and with psionics, I can only accomplish so much because to me, psionics ties into psychic-skills so large-scale event manipulation, major reality alteration, etc. doesn't really count while precognition etc. does).

Maybe you should clarify what magic is going to be defined as in the scope of this thread so we have a guideline to follow?

[Ci Celli Ddu]

Well to define Magic I'll just quote m1thr0s :D :

• mundane + sublime = "focused intent" = "magick"

According to the text I previously quoted:

This (psionics) is done through intention coupled with intense focus usually also including the use of visualization for beginners

...which sounds to me like Magic...

[m1thr0s]

one of the things we also have to weigh into this is the whole LHP vs RHP emphasis (or Left Hand Path vs Right Hand Path for the uninitiated)...

this is because some will see "magick" as a very specific sort of form while others will not. Similarly, some will peceive a division between the alchemical and the magickal while for others these are the same thing etc...

so we are going to be confronting perception itself at some pretty basic levels in all of this I think.

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

one of the things we also have to weigh into this is the whole LHP vs RHP emphasis (or Left Hand Path vs Right Hand Path for the uninitiated)...

this is because some will see "magick" as a very specific sort of form while others will not. Similarly, some will peceive a division between the alchemical and the magickal while for others these are the same thing etc...

so we are going to be confronting perception itself at some pretty basic levels in all of this I think.

m1thr0s

How do LHP and RHP differ in their views on psionics?

[Kain]

one of the things we also have to weigh into this is the whole LHP vs RHP emphasis (or Left Hand Path vs Right Hand Path for the uninitiated)...

this is because some will see "magick" as a very specific sort of form while others will not. Similarly, some will peceive a division between the alchemical and the magickal while for others these are the same thing etc...

so we are going to be confronting perception itself at some pretty basic levels in all of this I think.I think this is quite crucial in the realization if the term's specifics and is quite hardly mentioned...very good observation m1thr0s.

How do LHP and RHP differ in their views on psionics?They don't. At least there are no definitions of Psionics that take this terminology into account...you see, Psionics as a paradigm tried to remain "neutral and unassociated" with anything having to do with religious or otherwise mystical doctrines of any nature, so as to steer away from "superstition", "cultural discrimination" and to also be more applicable to the average person, without requiring him/her to get acquainted with complex systems and models of reality of any sort. Of course, as is already apparent I think, this had quite the opposite effect (at least in my view) as this artificial differentiation and the fervor psionic practitioners try to defend it most of the times encountered by denying to allow elements of otherwise established reality paradigms enter the discussion field manage to create a quite unmatched field of disinformation and superstition. I've been interested and practicing Psionics for quite a few years, and I've always said that in my view the problem is that Psionics try to remain neutral and independant conceptually while diving head-on in ancient practices and at the same time denying both to accept cross definitions from other paradigms and to provide one with a sufficient terminology and system of practice to make all this practically functional.

This is an interesting thread. I'll have to return to it tomorrow unfortunately as it's relatively late here and I'll have to be up way too late in the morning. Feel free to comment on what's already said on my part however and I'll return in due time...

Kain

[Ci Celli Ddu]

Thanks Kain, I was hoping you'd lend us some of your insights. :D

[Kain]

As previously stated, Psionics is a relatively new term that atempts to approach pdychic abilities in a practical way, so as to provide results that are unaffiliated and thus unaffected by the bias and lack of "scientific" precision that may be found in religious practices that have gone out of base (and thus fail to utilize aspects of their practices out of fear fo straying from tradition, unwillingness for deeper research etc). This is a very powerful starting position, in a way not very different from the outset portrayed by the movement of Chaos Magick, an outset that is heavily rooted on endeavors that actually work and have practical results, and is not afraid to modify things in any way needed in order to improve those results. What motivates this outset is utility, and empty dogmaticism has no place in it.

However, the problem encountered when the usual definitions of Psionics are put to action, is an over fanaticism to differentiate themselves from so called magick and relegion. This is quite a futile attempt when one is agressively tapping into psychic abilities however. Most Psions try to disassociate themselves from magick and reality influence in any other way but that cited by the narrow definition of the ability used, but is anything that simple really? Magick is usually defined as the ability to influence reality in accordance with one's will. Telekinesis (for instance) is the psychic ability related with the conscious influence upon physical objects, through the employance of will. Isn't telekinesis a form of magick however, and if not, where is the line drawn between them? This is not easy to say, and for me at least, it is futile to even try to differentiate them. Why is a spell or enchantment directed by a magician to further his aims on the material plane not telekinesis? This is not easily answered either...perhaps an intelligent answer would be that telekinesis is an ability that functions consciously and in real time, while a spell may be cast today but manifest in it's own time. Even so however, telekinesis could be said to be a highly conscious sense of the technical aspect of spell-casting, thus allowing "instant" spells to be cast. To an extent, I would even agree with this viewpoint personally, as I have observed that as perception of the forces at work in telekinesis works, so does perception of the forces at play during Manifestation, and thus spell-casting is directly improved through it, as is one's understanding of reality in terms of the phenomenon of Manifestation and what pertains to it. So there really is no definite line between the two, and it does not help Psions at all to so fervently ignore (in their most part) to be associated with aspects of a science that is clearly the oldest of our species. By doing this all that is achieved is a denying of quite vital clues that are absolutely needed to be considered for a comprehensible and sufficiently complete reality model to be constituted.

Another problem faced by this artificial differentiation is that most of Psionic dictrines do not provide any suficiently good alternative to the techniques and theories they try to steer away from. Casting away dogma is a supremely powerful tool, although badly utilized in this respect on their part. Energy work is highly technical in nature and most traditions dealing with it have vast volumes describing it's specifics. By putting these aside and trying to "start anew" based on experimentally observable data is a commendable attempt, however the simpleness of most described techniques is quite off-putting really. So another big problem is that Psions in the most part deny to construct an equally workable paradigm of theory and technique to replace that of magick.

So there's a lot of potential here but as long as this debate over differentiation of the two is kept up, unfortunately Psionics cannot rise to their otherwise worthy position because of denying aspects that are absolutely vital for forming a complete view of reality mechanics, and thus completing the puzzle successfully...

Kain

[Ci Celli Ddu]

Thanks Kain. Im not overly used to the terms Psion and Psionics , unless you coun't the Psi Division in 2000 AD's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_AD_%28comic%29) Judge Dredd

I do differentiate between passive psychic experiences and magick. For example, when I heard a letter fall through the letter box this morning I knew that it was for me and who had sent it, even though most of the post I get is for previous tenants and I wasn't expecting any post for me. There was no magickal intent or focus involved, so I don't really class that kind of experience as being magick. Which leads me to the question: does the term psionics cover passive psychic experiences?

[Kain]

There was no magickal intent or focus involved, so I don't really class that kind of experience as being magick. Which leads me to the question: does the term psionics cover passive psychic experiences?Which brings us back to the particulars of the definition of magick I think, which may vary from person to person. Psionics certainly cover passive psychic abilities however, although what I personally find to be contradicting is the apparent differentiation such abilities seem to be portrayed to have from other aspects of occultism. I think concentrating on passive (or active, like the example on my previous post) abilities is just fine however it doesn't really stand to state that they are "independant" from the structure "magick" calls upon. For instance, I get the experience you describe a lot myself, I've gotten it from scrying sessions too though, and they are usually considered a divination technique related to magickal traditions. The effect is exceptionally similar...are we to make that the two are different simply because one person (the magician) considers it a structured divinatory technique that opens one to spontaneous impressions and the other one "just knows" (the Psion)? And contact with what sort of principle (or set of principles) provides the passive-ability user the limited omniscience he/she is experiencing? Is it really that different from the transcendant aspect of our Self that magick is so often attempting to approach (and the experiences resulting from that fusion)?

Such questions are very hard to answer due to the proximity of the experiences of both Psionics and Magick, so I think it's kind of a knee jerk reaction to consider them outright different after acquainted with such similarities. I agree that there may be different goals and focuses in each paradigm's application although I think that's perfectly natural and even expected when approaching different paradigms. I mean what's the point of having different systems if they don't somehow differentiate and personalize their approach to suit their goals and needs...? :) It's still farfetched however I think to take this so far as to claim different root procedures with so much similarities at hand (not implying that you said anything in those lines though yourself Ci Celli Ddu).

Kain

[Logos]

Very good question. As a magician/alchemist, I have absolutely no interest in "spiritual oneness," "unification with the collective unconscious," "individuation," or whatever you want to call it. Quite frankly, I just don't care if I'm not "one with Earth" or "connected" to the jackass sitting next to me. And I think this is a big distinction that people like those who run www.psipog.net (http://www.psipog.net) make between magic/alchemy and psionics. For them, from what I can tell from their site, magic/alchemy is a "spiritual" pursuit by default with no ifs, ands, or buts. And I think that's a huge misconception. Magic/alchemy is about change regardless of whether or not you feel "spiritually interconnected" as a result. You can sell your "soul" to Microsoft for all I care: you'll still be capable of practicing magic/alchemy.

-Logos

[Ci Celli Ddu]

Very good question. As a magician/alchemist, I have absolutely no interest in "spiritual oneness," "unification with the collective unconscious," "individuation," or whatever you want to call it. Quite frankly, I just don't care if I'm not "one with Earth" or "connected" to the jackass sitting next to me. And I think this is a big distinction that people like those who run www.psipog.net (http://www.psipog.net) make between magic/alchemy and psionics. For them, from what I can tell from their site, magic/alchemy is a "spiritual" pursuit by default with no ifs, ands, or buts. And I think that's a huge misconception. Magic/alchemy is about change regardless of whether or not you feel "spiritually interconnected" as a result. You can sell your "soul" to Microsoft for all I care: you'll still be capable of practicing magic/alchemy.

-Logos

Good point, and I agree entirely. As for being "connected" I can feel "spiritually interconnected" any time I want if I have a mind for it, I really can (except during a hangover), but it lost its novelty a long time ago and in the general sense it serves no purpose whatsoever, unless employed for some specific magickal manipulation of some sort.

Psionics....Magick for Muggles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggle)? :D

[Kain]

Very good question. As a magician/alchemist, I have absolutely no interest in "spiritual oneness," "unification with the collective unconscious," "individuation," or whatever you want to call it. Quite frankly, I just don't care if I'm not "one with Earth" or "connected" to the jackass sitting next to me. And I think this is a big distinction that people like those who run www.psipog.net (http://www.psipog.net) make between magic/alchemy and psionics. For them, from what I can tell from their site, magic/alchemy is a "spiritual" pursuit by default with no ifs, ands, or buts. And I think that's a huge misconception. Magic/alchemy is about change regardless of whether or not you feel "spiritually interconnected" as a result. You can sell your "soul" to Microsoft for all I care: you'll still be capable of practicing magic/alchemy.

-LogosOn the other hand, the actual particulars of the term "spiritual" are also quite variable I think. For the employance of any psychic power or ability, one essentially needs to utilize the super-physical (or "transcendant") principle. However, in order to utilize any principle, one must first adhere to the particulars and nature of the principle sought to be attained/utilized (otherwise no resonance with the said principle can be achieved). Due to this factor, the only possible way for the employance of psychic abilities on the practitinoer's part is necessarilly, consciously or unconsciously, adhering to the properties of the super-physical or "transcendant" aspect of consciousness. Further cultivation of those abilities to bring about greater potency and control essentially requires an intensification of one's resonance with the said principle, which is of course only brought about by further "tuning" or adherance to it's properties. So cultivating psychic abilities essentially involves the super-phtysical or "transcendant" factor, whether consciously called "the Above" or not, making the innevitable aim and root of power between Psionics and Magick the same co-ordinate.

Also, it is quite possible for one to grow into those properties out of simple adherance to "what works" concerning the ability itself. It is a very valid process constructed around the fascilitation of the ability in mind, and since that ability essentially requires a more meticulous alignment with the "transcendant" factor to come about, finetuning the ability successfully also improves one's respective alignement and has one adhere to the properties and nature of the height one taps to.

This is pretty much the course I followed to be where I am today, absolute focus upon certain abilities being my spearhead of progress and research in the field of occultism for many years. Since the ability would not improve unless I tuned it correctly, I did what I had to do and this self-tuning unconsciously walked me through pretty much everything I realized later on. From energy work processes, to centre points upon the body, even to the adherance to the principle of Self-Deification or Autotheism, for a very long time it was the technical aspect of the ability working that lead me on and lead me correctly. So Psionics innevitably and necessarily work towards the same end with magick I think, the only difference between the two being one of semantics/terminology and also one of technical application and focus. However these differences are pretty much a given, and shared by all sorts of different magickal paths worldwide, all of them still necessarilly approaching the same principle wether calling it "Union", "Godhead" or "further empowerment"...

Kain

P.S. I am sorry if this seems like a roughly put response. I had written a larger and more coherent one initially but my computer crashed on me pushing the submit button...

[Logos]

Due to this factor, the only possible way for the employance of psychic abilities on the practitinoer's part is necessarilly, consciously or unconsciously, adhering to the properties of the super-physical or "transcendant" aspect of consciousness.
That's dogma, Kain. The idea that consciousness plays a role in magical practices is probably the most dogmatic of all. There is no proof of consciousness. At this point in time, given our technological capabilities, we have no idea, no fucking clue what consciousness is. So to say, to assert, that magic is a product in any way, shape, or form of "consciousness" is nothing more than a product of dogma, of belief in-the-raw. Show me proof that consciousness is mutable and maybe, just maybe I'll agree. But so far, from my experience, consciousness has nothing to do with it. There is something called the astral (that's the "paint" our dreams are composed of) and we can manipulate that, as far as I can tell, to manipulate the energy around our bodies. I can feel that energy: it exists. I can see the astral when I dream: it exists. Where is consciousness? What is consciousness?

As far as I'm concerned, consciousness is spiritual, and therefore has no bearing on whether or not I'm capable of manipulating energy, psi, or whatever you want to call it. Consciousness holds no weight in my practice. Though, I will admit, it holds a lot of weight in conversation. It serves only to explain the otherwise inexplicable.

-Logos

[Kain]

There is something called the astral (that's the "paint" our dreams are composed of) and we can manipulate that, as far as I can tell, to manipulate the energy around our bodies. I can feel that energy: it exists. I can see the astral when I dream: it exists. Where is consciousness? What is consciousness? OK, let me put this differently then to convey my point. The "Astral" lies above the physical and is subtler and loftier than the reality we are perceiving and interracting with in so-called "mundane" terms. So, for the performance of psychic abilities, a conscious manipulation of the properties of two "levels", "floors" or planes of reality is utilized and needed. Since we need at least two levels, the higher one acting upon the passive through extensive mobility, perception and manipulation, we might as well think of them as "Above" and "Below". No need to mention "consciousness" in any way to make this assertion I think. So, with that in mind, and with the fact that (at least for me) it is evident that there are subtler substances than astral matter, this brings me to the conclusion that we are looking at a recursive procedure. Where the "floor above" becomes the "floor below" for something that lies even higher and is "out of sight" for the initial bottom of the chain. Utilizing the "second above" and integrating it in one's system improves the potency of abilities, bringing about a more powerful polarity. The image here (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Goyios/Forum%20stuff/?action=view&current=increasedvoltage.jpg) is a very old one so bear with it, however it was built to convey that very point of ever increasing voltage. So if you like keep "consciousness" out of the equasion, but we are still approaching a system that utilizes the controlled interaction of two or more planes, thus also portraying a conscious upward movement of sorts for an improvement of the abilities in question to come about.
Consciousness holds no weight in my practice. Though, I will admit, it holds a lot of weight in conversation. It serves only to explain the otherwise inexplicable. I think this is a very important point you make Logos and in a way answers why consciousness may play a part in this process in the end, as in my view at least the previously mentioned ascent doesn't seem to stop, there always being an unattained "Above" lying above us. But this is a personal observation I guess. Still however, the pursuit of the ever subtler is instrumental for the empowerment required, and this is not a dogmatic but a purely mechanical claim I think. This pursuit of the ever subtler and the ascending movement it brings about is a very recurrent theme in pretty much all magickal and alchemical traditions, perhaps a portrayance of one of the few objective aspects of evolutionary universal movement. It is this movement that Psionics hint I think, which to my eyes is not different from the Great Work itself, perhaps simply stated in different terms. So, without involving the word "consciousness", does this make more sense?

Kain

[Naomi]

Lol Kain do you also have a knack for expanding algebraic equations?

Good post and one I have found to be thought of as truth by many other magical travellers.

I also agree with V/S/S/V though! The astral as "paint".

The occult is nothing if not paradoxical. :D

We can never fully explain anything right. Science has claimed this, correctly.

Are humans stupid or just fragmented?

Sorry I don't have time to go in depth here. You two write like chefs:

If chefs fit 800 calories in one small pastry, while placing only 50-100 calories in one yeast roll.

One of your posts would be like a french pastry.

lol

Enjoyable though.

[Kain]

Lol Kain do you also have a knack for expanding algebraic equations?Yeah, lol, that's quite true I guess Naomi. I've been known to discuss through algebra, friends of mine still remembering the time I explained to them the concept of "spiritual ascension" through recursive programming techniques combined with the geometric concept of dimension...hehe...I suppose it's the way I think and also my background that talks. Good post and one I have found to be thought of as truth by many other magical travellers.Thank you, I appreciate the remark.
I also agree with V/S/S/V though! The astral as "paint".

The occult is nothing if not paradoxical. :DIndeed, that was a very good corelation Logos, I agree!
Are humans stupid or just fragmented? I think that, thankfully for all of us, it is the second one i.e. fragmented. It'll all make sense eventually, we just need to attend to Necessity and Reintegration with sufficient zeal...
Sorry I don't have time to go in depth here. You two write like chefs:

If chefs fit 800 calories in one small pastry, while placing only 50-100 calories in one yeast roll.

One of your posts would be like a french pastry.

lol

Enjoyable though.Haven't been told that before, lol...:mcool:

Kain

[Logos]

I consider myself an analogist (as you can probably tell from the self-proclamation following my moniker). And the best analogy I can think of is that reality is a canvas, my paintbrush is my will, and that stuff that colors my dreamscape is "astral paint." I use my will to shape the paint, to "add a little color here and there," and the product is my reality (reality is canvas, my reality is art-on-canvas), which you are more than welcome to peruse, critique, comment upon, or maybe take to heart. If you take it to heart, as art, then I might call that magic. Then again, if you critique, like a post-mortem interpretation of Auguste Rodin's incomplete "The Gates of Hell," and that makes me think twice, that's magic, too.

The question isn't consciousness, it's appropriation: who takes credit for this work? Rodin left us molds, but never left a guideline for a piecing-them-together, so we're left again with a series of potential interpretations of a sculpture we will never know a product of Rodin, but rather products of the artists who take it upon themselves to say, "Maybe this is the way Rodin would have pieced the molds together."

That's not consciousness: that's real, appropriation, giving credit where credit is due. And, as far as I can tell, credit is due to a party of "painters," not to a party of "conscious beings."

I don't care if I'm conscious of my surroundings. I'm aware, and that's what matters most to me in practice. Theory is an "other" altogether: I can talk of consciousness all day, but that doesn't mean it matters when I practice.

And I know this is a little bit cliche, but it's like when Nietzsche wrote, "God is dead," meaning this: it doesn't matter if God is dead or if God exists because even if tomorrow we realize via science that God never existed in the first place, we will still be the same, we will not cease to function. We will never cease to function as magical beings regardless of whether or not we suddenly know there never was a God or consciousness or mind or Truth with a capital T. None of that matters in the least as far as practice is concerned. As far as practice is concerned, God might as well be dead, so let's just consider God dead.

Dogma may assist us: there is dogma to the order in which I wash my body during showers, but that dogma holds no weight on being clean. I wash my body parts in a different order than you, but we're both clean in the end. And that's what matters. Not consciousness. Not God. Practicality.

-Logos

[Kain]

That's not consciousness: that's real, appropriation, giving credit where credit is due. And, as far as I can tell, credit is due to a party of "painters," not to a party of "conscious beings."

I don't care if I'm conscious of my surroundings. I'm aware, and that's what matters most to me in practice. Theory is an "other" altogether: I can talk of consciousness all day, but that doesn't mean it matters when I practice. "Theory", as a discrete part from practice, should hardly even exist in our arsenal I think. The only reason theory is discussed, at least to my view, is that theory functions directly in synch with practice itself, both of them being indispensable parts of practicality and results-bringing itself. Differentiating between theory and practice deems theory as discreet from Action, which is a common misconception I think. The only reason theory exists is to be the eyes of action, arming practice with absolutely practical and necessary vision that action alone lacks. In my view, it's quite pointless to discuss theory in any way unless you somehow already see the practical leverages required to bring it's ramiffications in actual, physical terms. Otherwise it's all just a bunch of pretty embroidery, having no practical application nor any influence in real workings.

Since our will is employed in synchronising both planes, both the subtle and the gross, itself being neither of them, I think the existance of a "vanishing mediator" making that control possible is a natural thing to come to consider. Also, since it is what makes all this "painting" possible for the "painters", guiding their hands to their desires' content, I would say it is as real and pragmatic as the paint and painter themselves, there being no question as to it's substantiality. Not caring for being aware and conscious still deems you a conscious being I think Logos, necessarilly too since you are aware, and regardless from whether you personally would desire to pursue the matter more intimately. It also endows you with the very ability to paint and to perceive your paintings, and although it is everyone's right to choose their objects of observation and research, not caring for being conscious does not make consciousness of your suroundings any less real than it is I think. It is simply a choice of focus, and an absolutely valid and respectable one, but it does not affect nor deny the fact that you are conscious and that you are using this consciousness to do things in practice even as we speak.

So I understand you point of view but what I'm trying to say is that observing that consciousness can take care of itself even when we do not address it in practical terms does not make consciousness any less pivotal in the carrying out of those practical terms. It is still there and is still a part of the puzzle to be solved eventually.
And I know this is a little bit cliche, but it's like when Nietzsche wrote, "God is dead," meaning this: it doesn't matter if God is dead or if God exists because even if tomorrow we realize via science that God never existed in the first place, we will still be the same, we will not cease to function. We will never cease to function as magical beings regardless of whether or not we suddenly know there never was a God or consciousness or mind or Truth with a capital T. None of that matters in the least as far as practice is concerned. As far as practice is concerned, God might as well be dead, so let's just consider God dead. Again, a very good point. However, as I've said elsewhere, I feel that God and the concept of the Supernal can serve quite a practical purpose in our endeavors. It's the only way to have it around really, as like theory, if God could not have an effect in our practice there wouldn't be any reason to talk about God or integrate God in our workings, would there? Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that like before, I feel that only principles that one does personally perceive as actual and practically utilizable factors should be employed, and the integration of Godhead could be thought of as the most powerful one, at least for me. The absoluteness of the claim (the capitals etc) is also part of the practicality of the principle, having one aspire to integrating the highest and loftiest possible of principles in one's "sight range", thus aiming at a truly qualitative jump rather than simply a quantitative one, which would be a premature attainment that would eventually prove pointless.
And that's what matters. Not consciousness. Not God. Practicality.
Anyway, I don't want to drag this off-topic so I'll leave it at that. However I think that all these concepts you bring up Logos are absolutely practical and actual in their application, that being the only reason (and in fact, the prerequisite) one should employ them. Much like the subtle energy of the body, so are they approached in square terms and as quite actual parts of the procedure. Theory cited for the sake of theory alone is not theory at all, it is simply baseless speculation. Theory is bound with practice and both of their innevitable aim is to bring about a verifiable result.

I mean no disrespect to your views however, just further clarifying my viewpoint.

Now, bringing this back on track, and keeping in mind the previous citations I made, I think that since Psionics essentially make an effort towards further attainance of what lies above the "conventionally" perceived, they are ultimately engaging in the same struggle and motion that magick itself engages to through it's goal of transcendance. This observation makes them fully reconcilable approaches to my view, only differentiated in communicating parts of the same essential procedure.

Kain

[Logos]

Having read your response and looked back over my original posts, I think what I have failed to say in the simplest terms is that the Psionics movement (e.g., psipog.net) seems to hold dearly to the assumption that magic is inextricably tied to untestable hypotheses and therefore not worth considering. And that is where I disagree with the administrators of psipog.

We all have different theories, different models and ways of describing what amounts to the same thing. I can argue all day that magic works by virtue of analogy and someone else can argue all day that magic works by virtue of God. Regardless of one's theory, magic still works.

Thus, I would say that psionics is just an aspect of magic rather than something "different." Psionics as represented by psipog, however, should be considered different from magic, and it should be because of the theory put forth by psipog.

In terms of theory, the Psionics of psipog.net is different from, say, the Mutational Alchemy of abrahadabra.com. In terms of practice, however, psionics (i.e., energy manipulation; call it energy, call it chi, call it psi) may be considered an aspect of mutational alchemy.

-Logos

[Kain]

Having read your response and looked back over my original posts, I think what I have failed to say in the simplest terms is that the Psionics movement (e.g., psipog.net) seems to hold dearly to the assumption that magic is inextricably tied to untestable hypotheses and therefore not worth considering. And that is where I disagree with the administrators of psipog. I fully agree with you here Logos...this is pretty much what I have been stating myself previously in this thread.

Thus, I would say that psionics is just an aspect of magic rather than something "different." Psionics as represented by psipog, however, should be considered different from magic, and it should be because of the theory put forth by psipog. I see your point. My original differentiation was that I approached psionics without psipog's definition, thus completely bypassing the claim as to the untestability of magick. If put in this way, however, certainly. However, since psionics are certainly directly testable abilities, being able to practice them through a magickal background would in a way invalidate the claim of psipog.net but I guess I would be splitting metaphysical hairs if I went on about that :) .
In terms of theory, the Psionics of psipog.net is different from, say, the Mutational Alchemy of abrahadabra.com. In terms of practice, however, psionics (i.e., energy manipulation; call it energy, call it chi, call it psi) may be considered an aspect of mutational alchemy. Yeah, if we accept the theory put forth by psipog.net, that's pretty much the case. I was talking from the standpoint that psipog's theory has been "proven wrong" although on the other hand, Psionics are not ultimately defined by psipog alone either...as pretty much nothing is. Fully understandable Logos, thanks for the clarification.

Kain

[Logos]

Then we appear to be on similar pages. Maybe not the same page, but that doesn't matter to me as far as discussion is concerned.

Similar pages imply the presence of a binding, if I may use the analogy of the book in this case...

...whereas the same page may often be considered a single piece of paper, caught by the wind, thereby drifting away.

-Logos

[Kain]

Then we appear to be on similar pages. Maybe not the same page, but that doesn't matter to me as far as discussion is concerned.

Similar pages imply the presence of a binding, if I may use the analogy of the book in this case...

...whereas the same page may often be considered a single piece of paper, caught by the wind, thereby drifting away.

-LogosGood analogy I think. Also, it is quite evident (to me at least) that we are all approaching an objective process through subjective attempts of classification and modelization, so two distinct but similar viewpoints are perhaps more indicative of picking up on a universal "correctness" than two people expressing absolutely identical ones...

Kain

[KaosSwirl]

I'd like to consider these two quotes on Psionics from Wiki:

Just where does psionics end and magic begin (or vice versa)?



imo the difference between the two is psionics is exploring reality and self through the manipulation and exploration of psychic abilities, most people i know of that practice psionics have no real intrest in actual magick, but have a deeper intrest in finding self enlightment.

people that tend to use the term magick, also tend to see the manipulation of vibration as being something outside of self, therfore it can be used for self exploration but magick itself tends to fall into the category of manipulation of reality, and meditation, trance or gnosis tend to be the technique used for self exploration.