Magic
John Michael Greer (a genuine Druid) has an excellent post here about magic. Here he explains what its like to be a practitioner in the modern age:
Being an operative mage in the contemporary industrial world, really, resembles nothing so much as being an evolutionary biologist at a convention of Southern Baptists—or … the great majority of the people around you know essentially nothing about the subject that concerns you … they consider themselves qualified to judge the subject because they’ve lifted some canned polemics from these same books and websites, and if you show them that the canned polemics are riddled with ignorance, irrelevancies, and straw man arguments, they’ll just give you an irritated look and go right back to the canned polemics.
Wizardy is Manipulation of Symbols
The archdruid illustrates his point about magic by referencing a typical modern objection to the spectre of peak oil – that geology doesn’t create oil, capital does (see the link above for the full detail).
This is of course magical thinking, as John points out:
“Money, though, is a symbolic system consisting of abstract representations of wealth, and Stansberry is thus claiming that the manipulation of symbols wields occult powers that can override the laws of nature and conjure up petroleum from the depths of the Earth.”
This is of course the key theme of this blog, namely that money etc is a symbolic system, a semantic system (that is, the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols), and as such has no concrete incarnation in physical reality. The inescapable truth of this is of course obscured by a vast corpus of syntax (defined as the principles and rules that govern sentence structure). Go visit any serious financial blogs or the business pages of major newspapers and you’ll find plenty of syntax and few semantics.
It is also the reason why the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of information and entropy DO bear upon our social systems and DO constrain them, because to think otherwise is magical thinking.
But then, without magical thinking there would be no human civilisations, just entropy minimising machines.
Battles of The Magi
Greer continues:
To understand what it is that magic does do, it’s crucial to look at the specific purposes for which magic is used in practice. Since every human culture known to history has practiced magic, this isn’t exactly hard, and the purposes of magic have varied remarkably little over the centuries. Why do people turn to magic? To tilt the odds their way in hunting, gambling, war, and any other activity that combines high uncertainty with high stakes; to establish, improve, and shape the whole range of human relationships; to heal illnesses of body and mind; to integrate the personality and bring it into harmony with the structures of the cosmos, however those are understood; and, not least, to deal with the fact that other people are using magic for these same purposes, and not always with your best interests in mind.
The last point is key. There are a lot of magic users out there, some poring over stock charts to discern the mental state of investment adversaries, some trying to cast manipulative spells on unwary passers-by, selling patent cures for everything from broken economies to poor investment performance or perhaps pushing powerful price stability hexes.
At this moment in time magic is again ascendant and the rational and technological is in full retreat. Greer shows how to identify magical processes:
What do these things all have in common? They all deal with mental phenomena, individual or collective. Grasp that, and you start to grasp what magic is all about.
Operative Mages, Bullshit Artists and Zombies
Modern communications technology seems an ideal platform for magic because it provides a way for operative mages to extend their reach. At the same time it provides equal opportunity for bullshit merchants and other genuine mages to compete with them, but if we assume that competition for ownership of the collective symbol set is what is at stake here, we might hope that the magi will win eventually.
Greer also draws a distinction between magic and political thaumaturgy:
“The would-be political thaumaturge, the person who wants to use magical manipulation to make people do what he thinks is the right thing, is subject to the same rule. He’s trying to do the same thing Plato wanted to do in his imaginary Republic by different means. As thaumaturgy is subtler than jackboots, the political thaumaturge gets his disastrous results in a subtler way….When you’re practicing thaumaturgy for yourself or another person who wants to work with you, it’s possible to aim symbolic and ritual stimuli very carefully at specific details of the nonrational mind, and the effects are observed and managed by the rational mind; this sort of thaumaturgy very often spills over into theurgy if the person receiving the work is open to that…
…You can’t do that with political thaumaturgy. If you want to influence the thinking of a nation, or even a community, you have to paint with a very broad brush.”
“Magic” has been identified by other occult writers as the defence of the individual psyche against the tyranny of social conditioning and societal symbols and norms. Practitioners of magic are certainly active and are trying to operate upon you as are the thaumaturges. Whether it’s the FEDs attempt to generate or leverage expectations, some market talking head talking its book, a popular “economics blog”, an investment newsletter or some zealous economic or political reformer, they are all trying to enchant us. This looks set to continue.
Real practitioners of magic and collective thaumaturgy can be separated from bullshit artists by looking at the degree to which the subject appears to be successful in affecting the mental state of others. And both of the above can be separated easily from zombies. Zombies repeat magical claims while believing them to be science, as opposed to magic. The vast majority of what I see swilling around the interlink is Zombie output. Hidden in amongst it are gems of real magical and thaumaturgical machination.
Finance as Magic
Continuing with the magic theme, Nick Rowe observes that finance is magic, or some combination of magic and thaumaturgy:
“I can’t get over the feeling that Finance is magic. We shouldn’t be surprised if sometimes the rabbit doesn’t come out of the hat, or comes out missing an ear or two. We should be surprised that the rabbit ever comes out of the hat at all.
By “Finance” I mean the whole industry that intermediates between ultimate borrowers and ultimate lenders. And that means not just banks, insurance companies and mutual funds, but also financial markets for stocks and bonds.
Like any other industry, Finance converts inputs into outputs.
The steel industry converts iron ore into steel. I don’t understand the process myself, but I’m sure the engineers do. And I could probably figure it out if I read a bit about it. It’s not magic. But Finance converts a sow’s ear into a silk purse; it can’t be done. Finance is magic.”
Life in a medieval economy ain’t so bad…
He goes on a length here, well worth a full read. He ends thus:
“An ideal Finance is impossible, of course. But what surprises me is how far it has come along that road. It’s surprising that Finance exists at all. Theoretically, Finance doesn’t seem possible. It’s just too far-fetched to expect it to work in practice. It’s just a confidence trick; it all depends on trust. Let’s just stick to locked chests full of gold coins for our retirement, and real assets that we have financed with our own savings. And it’s just too bad if the people who can best work those assets, and the people who have the savings to own them, aren’t the same people. Life in a medieval economy ain’t so bad.”
More on the same theme from Interfluidity
And the last word on the subject to Monty Python:
Up Next
All of this has much to do with what creates order in cultures as they grow and rise and how that order inevitably dissipates over time according to the requirements of the second law, leading to that cultures subsidence and replacement by a new form or order.
I find him long-winded and lacking in genuine insight.
Greer or Rowe?
Greer. I’m not familiar with Rowe.
Nick Rowe, the guy who wrote the passages at the end of the post about finance being like magic.
I kind of know what you mean about Greers writing style. However I like books by Neal Stephenson so I don’t mind long windedness as long as its conveying a subtle nuance or at least adding to the whole.
Greer does have insight IMO however I do think it is perhaps over-narrow.
I’m probably doing the guy a disservice: he’s the one who has come closest to explaining, for me, the elusive concept of arbitrage.
Interesting. Can you expand on how you link that material specifically to arbitrage?
….industrialism is a system of arbitrage.
Those of my readers who aren’t fluent in economic jargon deserve a quick definition of that last term. Arbitrage is the fine art of profiting off the difference in price between the same good in two or more markets. The carry trade, one of the foundations of the global economic system that came apart at the seams in 2008, was a classic example of arbitrage. In the carry trade, financiers borrowed money in Japan, where they could get it at an interest rate of one or two per cent per year, and then lent it at some higher interest rate elsewhere in the world. The difference between interest paid and interest received was pure profit….
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-peak-oil-looks-like.html
I hadn’t seen that piece. Thanks for posting -its useful material for what I’ll be talking about next. For now though here is another passage from the same post:
“What sets industrialism apart from other arbitrage schemes was that it arbitraged the price difference between different forms of energy. Concentrated heat energy, in the form of burning fossil fuel, was cheap; mechanical energy, in the form of complex movements performed by the hands of spinners and weavers, was expensive. The steam engine and the machines it powered, such as the spinning jenny and power loom, turned concentrated heat into mechanical energy, and opened the door to what must have been the most profitable arbitrage operation of all time. The gargantuan profits yielded by this scheme provided the startup capital for further rounds of industrialization and thus made possible the immense economic transformations of the industrial age.”
Yes, its an arbitrage between cheap and expensive forms of energy. But here’s the rub:
THAT IS WHAT LIFE IS – ENERGY ARBITRAGE LEADING TO COMPLEXITY
An energy arbitrage situation is, thermodynamically, a situation far from equilibrium. According to the second law, work can only be done as a result of that arbitrage by moving the system closer to thermal equilibrium.
For those who doubt the second law applies to finance, I’ll simply observe that consistently above zero interest rates represent a system far from equilibrium, and carry trades move us close to equilibrium and extract work as a result.
Yet so many people advocate, via some unspecified process involving some form of financial phlogiston, we arbitrarily move the system away from equilbrium? Why? So the carry trade can continue.
But it can’t be done. Central banks can only act to move the system closer to equilbrium, they can’t move it in the reverse direction in the long term, just as we can’t magic up new reserves of fossil fuels.
A similar principle applies to socio-political order, disorder, and equilibrium.
Good points sceppy, and I note the ‘magic’ word again. But I think you, of all people, shouldn’t understimate the power of the Master Mind.
I will return to this subject anon.
Until then!
An ideal Finance is impossible, of course. But what surprises me is how far it has come along that road
Naive statement. The more vested the more perpetuation.
The word “spiritual” was in this barrage. To be blunt, science is the method of describing the magical.
Lim, i very much appreciate your approach and direction. Have you contemplated how the last iceage happened?
I agree with the wikipedia definition of the scientific method:
“The chief thing which separates a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect.[4] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. ”
Magical and spiritual approaches are some of those ‘other methods’.
These other two methods can be superior in certain circumstances, for example, when dealing with emergent phenomena from the human mind, or to construct a system for individual or collective action when the science method yields no useful answers.
I do think that what’s needed to move onwards from our current dying culture is more magic and less science. My aim here is firstly to understand, so far as is possible, our cultural systems using the scientific method and when there is noithing further to be gained form that approach to try the other ways.
Yes.
For example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21328-fasterthanlight-neutrinos-dealt-another-blow.html
One must consider:
-are we seeing/measuring/thinking “right”
-are we being “honest” (peer review/need for grants/status quo…all the good stuff)
The point i try to make is simple…life is magical and the scientific method is quantifiably good but qualitatively remiss.
But fragmentation of thought will surely ensue from magical thinking once scientific “hardness” dies.
If “reality” can’t be pigeon-holed by science…..oh wait, what’s the difference
Monotheism is/was magical thought yet constituted a sudden consensus of thought.
Both science, and magic and religion may unify or fragment.
Back to thinking about human “culture”. Manufacturing consent (you mention consensus)..
)
Need to resurrect the sovereign man here (oh oh). Allowing for GIGO in a world chockablock full of “information”, the only salvation for culture are minds that filter (garbage).
So it boils down to:
-high priests of science/religion/occult (economics
-”sound-thinking” responsible persons
to shape culture.
Saw Woody Allen’s ‘Zelig’ yesterday. Genius!
Can two devil’s advocates have a real conversation
?
Scepticus said:
“I do think that what’s needed to move onwards from our current dying culture is more magic and less science.”
Actually you put it better earlier long time ago in a u k housing crash comment for me. You said something like:
We should focus on happiness rather than money so much.
This line of thinking I think will unify the “scientific method” and the “magic method” in a useful way.
In other words the appropriate magic (faith) + science will lead to more happiness overall for humanity. But of course the question is which magic (which faith based mental model / beliefs will work the best).
Because the correct combo will result in the most happiness overall (individually and collectively) I believe.
I know you don’t believe in god but I always try to relate back to one god because this is my way.
On one of naked capitalism’s posts the discussion delved into the discussion of binariness of our thinking (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-vi-%E2%80%93-certainty.html#comment-557370).
So ….. I started thinking why binary? why not unitary since the creator is unitary.
But then of course I realized Reality is binary:
Reality = Creator (the magic part) + Creation (the science part).
Also, Islam’s teachings imply that all dichotomies (binaries) will be resolved (removed!) in heaven except for one. We get all of our wishes fulfilled except for one. We can never be him (i.e., we can never be Allah). But in a sense that is the incentive to live forever (the magic is never “fully” understood). And passage of time is the amount of magic that is understood (knowledge gained by meeting Allah and talking to him).
anyway. please keep up the good work.
mansoor h. khan
Hi again Mansoor. Thanks for the NK link. I found the debate in the comments about AI and how the fact we don’t think in binary makes true AI impossible more interesting than the actual article! Please do take a look at the comments section there and see what I mean.
In my personal cosmology there is no need for a creator. When all the matter in the universe has been broken down in black holes and re-emitted as radiation and dispersed then there will be no matter just energy, and hence no time (because massless particles don’t experience time). Hence there is no distance, hence suddenly we have the conditions for a new ‘big bang’.
From a scientific POV, the primary purpose of a creator would be to arbitrarily move the universe from its ending high entropy heat death state to a new low entropy beginning in which life and complexity can once again evolve.
But according to conformal cosmology, such an intervention is not required. I wonder how you would view this process from your Islamic perspective?
Scepticus said:
“I wonder how you would view this process from your Islamic perspective?”
OK. Scepticus I am so glad you asked.
From the Islamic perspective the purpose of the creation is to have the creation worship (obey) and glorify the creator (even though he has no need to be worshiped and glorified).
For things which have no free will (inanimate objects) they simply worship him by obeying his laws (physical, economic, etc) since dis-obeyence is not possible. For things which have a free will (humans and jinns) these have to CHOOSE to obey him.
From the Islamic perspective everything allowed in the sharia law (quran and the example of the prophet) is worship (even making love to your spouse, or having a tasty meal, or going to the restroom, or solving problems associated with the monetary system, or doing physics, or operating a business, or being good employee, or fighting for justice, etc). All allowed acts are automatically holy acts and help one get close to him (intention matters).
So how does it relate to the big bang?
Quran says that Allah knows the fourth. He knows the past, present, future and he also knows events which CAN happen but will not happen unless he wills them (the fourth events).
I believe (based on my read of the quran and unfolding of history) that Allah choose a path of events to happen which will end up extremely glorifying a small number of humans, the prophets.
In other words one reason for the creation (and the way it was chosen to be) is for a very small number of humans to be glorified. Not sure why they get to be so lucky? I will find out on the day of judgement.
mansoor h. khan
Scepticus also said:
” I found the debate in the comments about AI and how the fact we don’t think in binary makes true AI impossible”
Ok. I am glad you pointed this out. There exists more to the universe than binariness. The additional spark or the magic is “creativity”.
Where does it come from? I believe it comes from pain/need. In other words some kind of need is a mother of all creativity.
The need could be:
1. physical – better production methods for creating goods and services (i.e., make more money) to satisfy material need.
2. spiritual/psychological – Need to know the whys of the universe, how do things really work? and why are they way they are?
3. Self glorification – Need/desire to glorify ones talents and one’s community to show the others that “here is what I got”… See I am better! Art falls in this category. The Romans desire to rule the world falls in this category.
In reality all three motivations above work together and complement each other to improve our lot and give us a more satisfying life (yes we do get into trouble when we become too selfish in the process and start cheating each other, but that too self-correcting/self-balancing because we actually do learn from our mistakes).
So what need did Allah have to create the universe and to create creative humans? Well he did not need to (quran says) but he wanted to.
I will deal with this subject later (quran does tell us, at least partially). Partial answer is in my earlier comment to you about the big bang and trajectory of history (why this trajectory as opposed to another one?).
Enough Islam for one day.
Mansoor H. Khan
The first article of faith is to believe that creator speaks to humans…..that is to say, it really is the word of “god” and not of power-seeking humans.
Why the need of faith? It’s obviously in your face. Life is a fact. Origin is murky. Magic.
The effort to discover origin is science, if scientific protocol is followed. Honesty is job 1.
Big question being, is there a scientic method for learning “spirit”?
If you were “god” and wondered about yourself, what would you do?
DWM said,
Big question being, is there a scientic method for learning “spirit”?
Yes. There kinda is at an individual level. You need to use the right brain and see the beauty and unity of things. Evenatually you need to see how everything is complementary and inter-dependent and not random and if you study it long enough has a purpose. And you can then generalize if all parts have a purpose as to how they relate to each other then the whole does too.
Also, the right brain must work together with heart. Justice and Mercy makes the heart happy and evil makes the heart hurt (in this sense heart is like a scientific instrument). If the universe truly has no objective (purpose) and big bang was a random accident and physical contants were set randomly then why would one ever feel bad when injustice is done them no matter what happens to them since nothing has ultimte puprose anyway (there would really never be anything good or bad, right or wrong).
One reason Allah allowed evil to be created (by giving free will to humans) is to make it easier to see the opposite of evil ( Justice and Mercy = Allah).
mansoor h. khan
Alan J. Sangster books are better than Greer. 2011 Warming to Ecocide: A Thermodynamic Diagnosis
2010 Energy for a Warming World: A Plan to Hasten the Demise of Fossil Fuels
Talks alot about a new grid architecture, no more waste aka new economics and concept of money.
Pingback: interfluidity » Opaque and stinky logorrhea