tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post5393199070504413437..comments2024-03-25T14:09:59.347-05:00Comments on Augoeides: It's Only a Model...Scott Stenwickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12389664381513219613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post-14505810445791442012010-04-30T12:01:20.092-05:002010-04-30T12:01:20.092-05:00I came across Carroll's magickal equation many...I came across Carroll's magickal equation many years ago and while I think it's a great idea, it's also really bad science.<br /><br />Carroll formulated this equation based on his own assumption about how magick works. From his assumptions he attempted to derive a formula. Now maybe I'm wrong and we derived this from experimental data, but when the data isn't published, it might as well be non-existent.<br /><br />There is an assumption in the magickal community that we need a magickal model to work magick. This notion of a model leads us to believe that magick works along a set of rules and guidelines that we simply don't understand. But is that really the case?<br /><br />Does magick work according to a set of rules with their own inherent logic or non-logic?<br /><br />If magick works according to a set of rules, does it work according to the same set of rules for all individuals?<br /><br />If there are rules of magick, are they constant? I've always thought of magick as alive, even sentient and with a sense of humor. If magick is alive or even a product of life, then it should be in a state of continuous change.<br /><br />It certainly seems that the practice of magick is an ever changing art. This has been explained as a function of shifting cultural beliefs and whatnot. But hell, it could just as easily be that we modify our practices as magick changes.<br /> <br />N<br /><br />http://bostonmagick.wordpress.com/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11607066763030942001noreply@blogger.com