IronOrchid wrote:Martialis wrote:At the end of the day magick is, more or less, empirical in its results which is one of the reasons I disagree with all of this moodiness and other stuff like that whole belief = all equation (sponsored by Chaotes the most along with psychologists and "skeptics"). Fire will burn your ass no matter what mood your in...
Intention might come into it as well: if someone's got a not-so-subconscious need in there somewhere to "prove" that a ritual is "hokey" and ineffective because they're personally put out by the wording, or the author, etc, then they're probably carrying a strong need to be proven right, and that intent might be powerful enough to undermine the actual validity of the working?
Whereas, if the person is doubting, but their intention is to honestly try the spell/incantation etc and HOPE that it works despite their doubt, then they are at least headed in the right direction.
None of that's meant judgementally, but intention is a MAJOR part of the equation in the practices I've used thus far in life, I doubt it's any different with NAP?
Very astute and well said, IronOrchid.
I would add that there are many scientific skeptics out in the world,
who demand that you prove magick by their terms.
I have more than proved magick for myself.
And I don't feel the need to prove it to them.
Of course some will say this is a dodge of some sort.
It is almost like the reverse of having a closely held belief in Santa Clause.
One invests many hours in believing upon Saint Nick.
And the dissonance of not believing is unpleasant to the believer.
I quote the comedian, Steve Martin, in the movie LA Story.
"A kiss is not necessarily true.
But it is what we want to be true."
