Very interesting stuff. Regarding this part, are you saying that that the supernatural claims behind these rituals are real in some literal sense, or that they have psychological effects that might not be desirable?
Very interesting stuff. Regarding this part, are you saying that that the supernatural claims behind these rituals are real in some literal sense, or that they have psychological effects that might not be desirable?
I realize that "natural world" is a fraught concept in itself, but please take me in a common sense reading; basically what would be seen as natural in everyday conversation or depicted in a movie/book/etc.
Maybe that concept should be expanded or contracted or eliminated to slice up the world in the most accurate ontology that we can, or maybe we should have no ontology at all. All of those are lines of argument that have been advanced by those who believe in religion, magic, etc. But as of right now the term "natural world" does have a current common sense interpretation that most people having good-faith discussions would recognize.
(Obviously almost any phenomenon can't be fully described by the laws of physics in the sense that it's too complex to account for the location and state of every elementary particle involved. But I mean in the sense of introducing entirely new laws, or instances where the existing ones are overridden.)
I don't think of myself as very literal-minded. I've spent hundreds of hours doing things like meditation and lucid dreaming and have experienced a range of states of consciousness. I'm even interested in very wild (but naturalist and law-bound) accounts of why subjective experience exists, like mind/body dualism and Russellian monism.
In this sense I appreciate people like psi researchers who at least overtly say "yes there are supernatural phenomena that go against the current laws of physics, we understand them very little if at all, but we're trying to get some initial data." I don't think they've ever succeeded, but at least I know how to have a conversation with them. But in other cases the answers just get bogged down in elliptical wording that I can't even understand, and I think that's what happened here.
I just finished with a quick edit to my post to be more specific, but I suspect your answer would be similar either way.
No one should recommend ceremonial magic and occult study, in my opinion. Anyone who 'should' be going down the rabbit hole can't be dissuaded.
But if you must, start with something like Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. Don't just pull out the Goetia and start summoning demons. Reality may or may not be mutable, but our perception of it certainly is. Would you really pick that as a first experiment?
Maybe so, because my mind is so bull-headedly resistant to being modified (at least in the ways associated with occult stuff, like visions, extreme emotion, etc.) that maybe I need a dose of the hard stuff to even notice it ;)
As a naturalist I don't think I can sign on to the first half, even as a realistic possibility. But for psychological effects, sure, I could buy it. The ability of the mind to do get into pretty extreme psychological states, via ritual and otherwise, is easily underestimated.
In fact I would say many naturalists hold onto that argument harder than just about anyone, because it's critical to help explain the weird stuff people experience (e.g. alien abductions are often hypnagogic hallucinations or sleep paralysis, near-death experiences are due to various impaired brain states, etc.)
How about this? Do not invoke what you cannot dismiss. You cannot be certain that you can dismiss anything you invoke. Don’t be an idiot.
Or perhaps this. You are playing a first-person shooter. You can be seen by your adversaries, but the adversaries are invisible to you and you have no idea of their powers or weaponry. Sounds like a stupid game for which there are only stupid prizes.
There are many paths up the mountain. Don’t be an idiot.