The central defining tenet of chaos magic is arguably the idea that belief is a tool for achieving effects...............Excuse me if my thoughts got a bit jumbled near the end. — HarryHarry

The trick, as used by many writers on philosophy, including sometimes the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is to start by arranging a set of appropriate terminology in some random order and then grammatically connecting them.

The cut-up technique is an important part off Chaos Magic, where a written text is cut up and rearranged, often at random, to create a new text.

For example, taking from the SEP article on Belief the following appropriate words: symbol - hot water - mind - particular fact - entities - representationalism - mass of water - memory - accessed- proposition.

We can then put them in one random order and then grammatically connect them to give:

Take the symbol of hot water as part of a belief in the mind, where hot water is taken as a particular fact in the world. Such facts lead to a novel entity in the mind, specifically an important feature of representationism. It follows that the representation of a mass of water as hot, as one says, hot water, is something stored in the memory and accessed when required in the form of a proposition.

Or we can put them in a different random order and then grammatically connect them to give:

Beliefs are part of propositions about entities that exist in an observed world, such as the object mass of water which is accessed by the mind from observation as having the form of hot water. Such objects become a symbol in the mind, things that have been been observed in the world, and retrieved as a memory when required, being brought back to light as a particular fact, in other words, as a form of representationalism

IE, as long as the terminology is appropriate, it is often the role of the reader to make sense of the article rather than the role of the writer.

Thanks I'm not sure where to go from there.

Good post. I saw "chaos magic" and was prepared for baloney, but you've laid out an interesting issue, one I've thought about a lot.

— The central defining tenet of chaos magic is arguably the idea that belief is a tool for achieving effects.
Effectiveness is the measure of truth.
— 7th principle of Huna — HarryHarry

I had never come across Hawaiian philosophy. I wish you would give us a bit more background. It might even be a good thread by itself.

Is the final goal of science effectiveness? — HarryHarry

On the other hand, what if Truth for Truth's sake, has the best effect? — HarryHarry

What do you think?
-Is effectiveness a good measurement of truth?
-Is truth for truth's sake the best goal, or should the goal be to have an effective life philosophy?
-Is there necessarily a tension between the two? — HarryHarry

I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. One of the things I mean by that is that the ultimate goal of thought is to determine what we should do next. If that's what's important, then truth is only a tool, not a goal in itself. It's secondary and too tight a focus on it is misleading. So, no, effectiveness is not a measure of truth. I guess you could say truth is a measure of effectiveness.

And no, I don't think truth for truth sake is all that important. I would say that knowledge for knowledge sake is. I think curiosity drives us to know the world in ways we can't know now will be useful in the future. So the final goal of science is not truth, it is knowledge, understanding. The most earth-shattering knowledge seems to come from sources that didn't seem all that useful in the beginning.

Good post.

The trick, as used by many writers on philosophy, including sometimes the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is to start by arranging a set of appropriate terminology in some random order and then grammatically connecting them. — RussellA

IE, as long as the terminology is appropriate, it is often the role of the reader to make sense of the article rather than the role of the writer. — RussellA

:up: Damn. You just summed up modern philosophy pretty darn well!

The human mind is so hyper-ready and prepared to find meaning in any way possible, that it will find one in the most obtuse and obscure sources. It will anchor in prior knowledge (pace Vygotsky) and use schema to fit into their own umwelt framework.

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum.

Maybe read the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huna_(New_Age)#:~:text=King%20wrote%20that%20the%20seven,is%20the%20moment%20of%20power.

Have y'all been living under a stone not to have noticed the unreasonable effectiveness of bullshit?

Have y'all been living under a stone not to have noticed the unreasonable effectiveness of bullshit? — unenlightened

Whatever your thoughts on Huna, @HarryHarry's post was substantive.

I wish you would give us a bit more background. It might even be a good thread by itself. — T Clark

I just gave you the background you asked for.

I just gave you the background you asked for. — unenlightened

Good post. — T Clark

Muhalo.

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum. — T Clark

Muhalo, you too, for as they say, you never step into the same river twice.
Maybe that can be an 8th principle of the tuna.

Have y'all been living under a stone not to have noticed the unreasonable effectiveness of bullshit? — Unenlightened

What channel is that on?

:up: Damn — schopenhauer1

The human mind is so hyper-ready and prepared to find meaning in any way possible, that it will find one in the most obtuse and obscure sources. — schopenhauer1

As T said:

The most earth-shattering knowledge seems to come from sources that didn't seem all that useful in the beginning. — T Clark

the ultimate goal of thought is to determine what we should do next — T Clark

Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?' — Lao Tzu

Have y'all been living under a stone not to have noticed the unreasonable effectiveness of bullshit?
— Unenlightened
What channel is that on? — HarryHarry

Truthsocial.com

The human mind is so hyper-ready and prepared to find meaning in any way possible, that it will find one in the most obtuse and obscure sources — schopenhauer1

Totally agree.

The Wikipedia article on Chaos Magic writes that our perception of the world is conditioned by our prior beliefs, and our perception of the world can be changed by changing those prior beliefs. An idea that relates back to Kant.
Chaos magic teaches that the essence of magic is that perceptions are conditioned by beliefs, and that the world as we perceive it can be changed by deliberately changing those beliefs.

The Wikipedia article also writes that William S Burroughs, who practised chaos magic, found importance in the cut-up technique as having a magical function, in not only politics but also science. The concept of the cut-up was developed by the Dadaists in the 1920's
Burroughs – who practised chaos magic, and was inducted into the Illuminates of Thanateros in the early 1990s – was adamant that the technique had a magical function, stating "the cut ups are not for artistic purposes". Burroughs used his cut-ups for "political warfare, scientific research, personal therapy, magical divination, and conjuration" – the essential idea being that the cut-ups allowed the user to "break down the barriers that surround consciousness".

One example of the cut-up technique may be found in poetic philosophical writings, including sometimes the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, where it is often the role of the reader to make sense of the article rather than the role of the writer.

Another example may be found in mainstream media, for example a BBC article on Trump. From observations about facts in the world, the following words may be used as a foundation for one's beliefs: supporters - Trump - America - great - threat - democracy - forces dominated - driven - intimidated - mob - stormed - patriots - insurrectionists.

We can then grammatically connect them to give:
Supporters of Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" agenda are a threat to democracy. "Maga forces are determined to take this country backwards." "But there's no question, that the Republican party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the Maga Republicans, and that is a threat to this country." Trump supporters thought of the mob who stormed the US Capitol last year as patriots rather than insurrectionists.

Or we can put them in a different random order and then grammatically connect them to give:
Patriots must now stand together against the threat posed by those mysterious figures who wish to destroy and must not be driven into despair or intimidated into silence. We applaud the great supporters of America who stand against the insurrections hiding in our midst, and like the mob who stormed the Bastille in 1789, seen as a symbol of the abuse of power, Trump has marshalled the forces for democracy in a world dominated by forces subverting the will of the people.

It may be seen that two people observing the same facts in the world may come to two completely different coherent understandings. The fact that an understanding of the world based on the same facts is coherent is no guarantee that the understanding is either true or correct.

The cut-up technique of chaos magic gives insight into art, politics and science.

It may be seen that two people observing the same facts in the world may come to two completely different coherent understandings. The fact that an understanding of the world based on the same facts is coherent is no guarantee that the understanding is either true or correct. — RussellA

That may be seen certainly. However, though 'I am sane and you are mad' may be rearranged to 'I am mad and you are sane', these are arrangements of words, not facts. From the fact that one can arrange words as one likes one cannot correctly deduce that one can rearrange thereby the facts. That is a bullshit that one can use to manipulate the gullible. Like this:

— The central defining tenet of chaos magic is arguably the idea that belief is a tool for achieving effects.
Effectiveness is the measure of truth.
— 7th principle of Huna — HarryHarry

A fine principle that equates truth and falsehood - 'because you're worth (jack sh)it'.

From the fact that one can arrange words as one likes one cannot correctly deduce that one can rearrange thereby the facts — unenlightened

We see a large disorganised group of people, which are facts in the world.

One person may connect the fact disorganised with the fact group of people and say "I see a mob", and another person may connect the fact disorganised with the fact group of people and say "I see a crowd".

Within language, facts in the world may be combined to give grammatically correct propositions, yet the fact that a proposition is grammatically correct does not guarantee its truth.

Within language, facts in the world may be combined to give grammatically correct propositions, yet the fact that a proposition is grammatically correct does not guarantee its truth. — RussellA

I find that an odd way of talking, to be honest. 'Within language' one can say anything. but i would not say that there are any facts 'within language', because I tend to think of facts as being out in the world at large. Within language there are true statements of fact, and false statements of purported fact.

Are we saying the same thing?

Anyway, I am saying, against the op and the 7th principle of Huna, "Effectiveness is the measure of truth." that it might sometimes be effective to lie. And indeed if it was never effective to lie, there would be a lot less lying than there is. The fact that what is claimed to be the 7th principle of Huna is itself a made up principle completely denied by the locals to be any tradition of theirs, makes it an excellent example of effective falsehood.

But not very effective, if one thinks things through.

Within language there are true statements of fact — unenlightened

There may well be, but does anyone agree what they are.

It also depends whether one is using the Correspondence, Semantic, Deflationary, Coherence or Pragmatic Theory of Truth.

A fine principle that equates truth and falsehood — unenlightened

I don't see it that way. I think it just means that truth is a secondary principle. Truth is a servant of utility. Truth, or falsity, must be useful to be meaningful. Who cares if the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain unless they are a Spanish farmer, a climate scientist, or a linguist in Edwardian England.

I don't see it that way. I think it just means that truth is a secondary principle. — T Clark

Bullshit on, dude. See what you want to see, no worries.

There may well be, but does anyone agree what they are. — RussellA

Any two, possibly, but truth is not democratic either. Things do not become more true the more people agree. Something can be true though no one knows it. I defend the meaning of the word against the destruction of its meaning with some vigor, because if the truth becomes a matter of choice, or convenience, then language itself loses its value, and we become as dumb beasts, because meaning depends on truth. Unless we can trust in the truth of language, we must dismiss its meaning entirely. Chaos will reign, but no one will listen to its proclamations.

The cut-up technique of chaos magic gives insight into art, politics and science. — RussellA

So this is akin to post-modernism's notion of "all is text". What is the grand narrative? The other tendency is some sort of unitary philosophy or grand narrative for which everything can fit into. Fukuyama, Hegel, Marx, embody this in philosophy of history. Evolutionary psychology might embody this in a sort of scientism. And on and on.

The counter to this is simply "laws of the universe". There are universal constants. Technology processes information. Energy is being transformed into other forms of energy. This is something that you can refute in words, but not in experience.

Bullshit on, dude. See what you want to see, no worries. — unenlightened

Graceless.

if the truth becomes a matter of choice, or convenience, then language itself loses its value — unenlightened

The trouble is this:

The number of human chromosomes was published in 1923 by Theophilus Painter. By inspection through the microscope, he counted 24 pairs, which would mean 48 chromosomes. His error was copied by others and it was not until 1956 that the true number, 46, was determined by Indonesia-born cytogeneticist Joe Hin Tjio. — Wiki

Wiki says now we know "the true number", simple as that. But of course that's not exactly true, because there are variations in the number, types, and arrangement of chromosomes listed on that very page. More importantly, for more than 30 years every biologist and every doctor believed it was a fact that humans have 48 chromosomes. Of course, we now believe they were all wrong, but it ought to give one pause.

None of this is a question of choice or convenience. This chaos magic business would be a non-starter even if beliefs created reality as imagined, because you can't choose your beliefs. Painter didn't choose his incorrect belief and Tjio didn't choose his improvement on Painter; he certainly didn't prefer 46 to 48 because it had the virtue of being true, as if he had some other way of determining that besides looking through a microscope. He looked and found 46. Others looked and also found 46 and said he was right.

If there's virtue here, it's not in eschewing choice or convenience, but in (a) looking and (b) holding your beliefs as open to revision. That's what pragmatism was aiming at, even if the talk of utility obscures that now and then.

If there's virtue here, it's not in eschewing choice or convenience, but in (a) looking and (b) holding your beliefs as open to revision — Srap Tasmaner

:up: In a nutshell.

Unless we can trust in the truth of language, we must dismiss its meaning entirely. Chaos will reign, but no one will listen to its proclamations. — unenlightened

That's the direction many think Society is heading towards at the moment.

As the Wikipedia article on Criticism of postmodernism writes:
Postmodernism has received significant criticism for its lack of stable definition and meaning.

So this is akin to post-modernism's notion of "all is text". — schopenhauer1

Yes. As the Wikipedia article on Postmodernism writes:

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse characterized by skepticism toward the "grand narratives" of modernism; rejection of epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning; and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power. Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism, with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses. The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism; it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.

for more than 30 years every biologist and every doctor believed it was a fact that humans have 48 chromosomes. Of course, we now believe they were all wrong, but it ought to give one pause. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not sure why you are telling me this. Certainly it is a problem that we get things wrong and believe things to be true that are not true. But it is not a problem for the meaning of 'true'. Something was thought to be true and turned out later not to be true. I think we need to keep stable and agree about what 'true' means and that it means the same when everyone thought wrongly then, as it means now that we have corrected ourselves. and if it turns out next week that there are another 17 chromosomes that have been hidden all this time because they are extra small or transparent or something, then we will revise again what we know. And at no time has what is true changed, but only what we believe to be true. Although it could also happen that the number of chromosomes might change.

By all means let us be open to revision and reversal of what we believe according to what we later learn to be true, but not according to what we later find to be convenient - that is the path to 'very stable genius' and never being wrong, conveniently.

The number of human chromosomes was published in 1923 by Theophilus...; — Wiki

Theophilus Thistle, the successful thistle sifter,
In sifting a sieve full of unsifted thistles,
Thrust three thousand thistles through the thick of his thumb.
If Theophilus Thistle, the successful thistle sifter,
Can thrust three thousand thistles through the thick of his thumb,
See thou, in sifting a sieve full of unsifted thistles,
Thrust not three thousand thistles through the thick of thy thumb.

Wiki says now we know "the true number", simple as that. But of course that's not exactly true, because there are variations in the number, types, and arrangement of chromosomes listed on that very page. More importantly, for more than 30 years every biologist and every doctor believed it was a fact that humans have 48 chromosomes. Of course, we now believe they were all wrong, but it ought to give one pause. — Srap Tasmaner

Tell me now Srap Tasmaner,

If Theophilus Thistle, the unsuccessful thistle sifter,
in sifting a sieve full of unsifted thistles,
Thrust not three thousand thistles through the thick of his thumb.
How many thistles has Theophilus Thistle the unsuccessful thistle sifter,
while sifting unsifted thistles through the thick of his thumb,
thrust through the thick of his thumb?

For example, taking from the SEP article on Belief the following appropriate words: symbol - hot water - mind - particular fact - entities - representationalism - mass of water - memory - accessed- proposition.

We can then put them in one random order and then grammatically connect them to give...

IE, as long as the terminology is appropriate, it is often the role of the reader to make sense of the article rather than the role of the writer.

But you haven't just grammatically connected them after mixing them up, you've kept the semantic meaning roughly the same, or in your later example, flipped the tone. An actually random process wouldn't keep the semantic content largely unchanged, because there are far more ways to throw those words into grammatically correct gibberish than to keep largely the same semantic meanings in tact within them.

I'm not sure if this is magic so much as the trivial fact that words have meanings but that that sentences also carry emergent forms of meaning, and that, by mixing up your words you can write different sentences.

This isn't 'people operating with a different set of facts and constructing their own meanings from them.' That is a phenomena that does exist, but this is more just an example of how language works, a good analogy maybe.

Chaos magic teaches that the essence of magic is that perceptions are conditioned by beliefs, and that the world as we perceive it can be changed by deliberately changing those beliefs.

Only to some degree. I can believe magic will let me drive my car through a wall, but when I try it, I presume my perceptions will not match up to my past belief.

Maybe we are thinking of a different "chaos magic?" Chaos Magic in Liber Null and Psychonaut and other sources I am familiar with I found to be essentially just grifter nonsense. Not that I found it to be all that different from Crowley and Evola in some respects, but then again, I also think those guys were mostly grifters.

The entire modern business enterprise of "magic," seems to rest on a bait and switch between the idea of magic as in "you can control the weather, shoot fire balls, brew love potions, summon demons," and "here is this really obscurantist philosophy. If you are a 'patrician of the soul,' you will find it to be incredibly deep and this proves you are exceptional. If you find it dumb it simply proves you do not understand it and are a plebian of the soul."

I find esoterica to be very fascinating, but boy does it also bring in a lot of predatory folks and obscurantism.

I also might be biased because my limited experience with "esoteric societies," convinced me that their main magical abilities are the transmutation of US dollars into drugs, and drugs into nothing. Which is fine, just not very impressive. I had friends who mastered that from middle school on, but hours of smoking pot and entering "trances," only seemed to give them magical skills vis-á-vis Street Fighter, Mario Kart, and Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey, along with an encyclopedic gnosis of horror movies and Dragon Ball Z episodes. Then again, in retrospect, that their girlfriends stuck around for all that... maybe they did have magic they weren't telling me about lol.

The human mind is so hyper-ready and prepared to find meaning in any way possible, that it will find one in the most obtuse and obscure sources. It will anchor in prior knowledge (pace Vygotsky) and use schema to fit into their own umwelt framework.

Sure, but in my experience of Chaos Magic and modern magic more generally, this insight is stretched into farcical territory, where writing down and meditating on sigals can help you with any goal, or you can imbue your sigals with personality until they become daemons, etc.

Only to some degree. I can believe magic will let me drive my car through a wall, but when I try it, I presume my perceptions will not match up to my past belief. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hugh Urban has described chaos magic as a union of traditional occult techniques and applied postmodernism.

As a believer in neither the occult nor postmodernism, chaos magic does not appeal, although I find its cut-up technique interesting.

That being said, as one reads that 99% of Morocco are Muslim, 68% of Norway is Christian, 94% of Thailand are Buddhists, 74% of Israel are Jewish and 79% of India are Hindu, this suggests that one's perception of the world can be changed by changing the beliefs of one's geographic location.

I don't know about "magic", but I can see "chaos" in your post! :smile:
Scattered ideas here and there, with no purpose seen in the horizon ...
Sorry about this, but this is what one can see from where I'm standing.
Maybe if you could tidy it up a little ...