WORD: "Magic?"

Skepticism, is often the result of our preconceptions of our reality, a clash between the notions our experience taught us as normality, and new claims we evaluate. It is a feature of our cognitive maturity. Since childhood, and throughout the course of our lives, many attempt to persuade us of various, often contradictory suggestions. Still, as we grow up, we learn, that ultimately, whatever the claim, if it discusses our world, our reality, it must be consistent with our experience, hence, limiting the notions, we would accept without objection.
As such, obviously, there is nothing "wrong" in being skeptic. On the contrary, in an age governed by the exchange of information, as information becomes a "weapon", skepticism becomes our last line of defense, protecting us from the manipulations of selfish parties and individuals. Still, being the product of our experience, we must accept, that skepticism has its limitations. To explain, while indeed, our experience reflects our impressions of past events, it is neither complete, nor infallible. We have not yet learned all there is to learn, as had we did, culture, science, and technology, could never evolve or progress. Still, more to the point, we must understand, our experience is not "objective data". Our experience is but a collection of memories, which in themselves, are not the "data," which our senses relayed into our minds throughout our lives, but rather the semantic meaning we extracted from it. As such, our experience reflects the beliefs we held in the past, coloring our memories with subjectivity, and many times, it is for this reason, that we sink into nostalgic longing, into memories, not yet tamed by understandings we learned after, and had we to relive such experiences, it is likely, we would not enjoy them as we did.
Still, such incompatibility does more than merely question our nostalgic tendencies. It challenges the validity of our skepticism altogether. To explain, again, many times, we bothered not, could not, or chose not, to "prove" our beliefs, and hence, it is possible, our experience does not reflect our reality, but rather the sum of our misconceptions. As such, if we care for the objectivity of our knowledge, we should not use our experience to discredit new notions automatically. We must remain skeptic toward our skepticism. We should not be quick to "label" issues as speculative, hearsay, subjective, manipulative, misleading, or false, simply because in the past, the arguments, which others offered to affirm them, were lacking, as when we do, we become easy to manipulate, through disinformation. To clarify, it is easy to discredit practically any notion, by providing invalid arguments to support it, causing us to dismiss it, regardless if such dismissal is justified, or desired. This is especially true, with respect to deliberate disinformation, and information warfare, where the abundance of contradictory data "blinds the enemy", by making it impossible to separate "good intel", from "bad" one. In short, if we fail to remain vigilant to logic, reason, and objectivity, skepticism can easily turn against us.
The reason I chose to begin this text with this introduction, is because I believe, our excessive skepticism is perhaps, the most significant obstacle we face, as we attempt to progress socially, scientifically, and culturally. To clarify, if we consider the social fabric of contemporary society, then arguably, the manner, by which manipulative parties exploited our natural empathy, caused us to become skeptic, with respect to the atrocities and misfortunes of others. Instinctively, we accept such atrocities as "normal", atrocities, which in the past, provoked us with outrage, and inspired us with the demand, we will prevent them in the future. If we consider science, our contemporary abundance of incompatible explanatory theories, with respect to many aspects of our reality (such as the origins of the universe, quantum mechanics, medicine, and many others), resulted with a general skepticism, any scientific theory could be infallible, regardless of its specifics. Moreover, arguably, we replaced the motivation for scientific pursuit, namely, attempting to unveil "the truth" through science, with more "practical" justifications, such as financial and military exploitation of our scientific efforts, and while surely, there is nothing "wrong" in "making a buck" from our cognitive labor, our inability to ensure such profits, should not limit our horizons automatically. Thirdly, if we consider art and culture, due to the impact of postmodern perspectives, we adopted a skeptic view over their value, as when our evaluation of these becomes purely subjective, we tend to reject their objective value. To explain, in a reality, where any individual can "select" which artworks are "masterpieces," and which are "garbage", no individual has the "mandate" to deny these "privileges" from others, hence, dismissing the possibility, any artwork may possess objective value.
While as we have just shown, our excessive skepticism has taken its toll over many aspects of our lives, arguably, the span of its "damages" stretches beyond that of which we know, or can realize. To clarify, skepticism does more than merely discredit information. It "blocks us" from considering issues altogether, blinding us from their details, which in themselves, could be but introductions into completely new conceptual realms, more complex and colorful than anything we knew prior. In fact, many times, it is this "richness" which increases our skepticism. To clarify, while surely, some of us may be more trusting than others, generally, when an idea, such as the belief in a religion, spiritual teachings, etc., offers us happiness, completeness, or all other types of riches, we cannot escape the feeling it is "too good to be true". Instinctively, we attempt to discredit these claims, in fear of being manipulated, or even exploited.
Honestly, such skepticism is justified, as indeed, many wish to exploit our trust, especially when addressing such issues. Nevertheless, we must not let this skepticism undermine logic and reason. If pure logic can prove a fundamental aspect of our reality, it simply must be, regardless of our personal skeptic tendencies or inclinations. For example, in "Delta Theory", I argued, that if we wish to understand anything about the essence of our reality, we must not contend against the existence of "existence", as when we do, we deem any additional notion we may have, as invalid. To explain, when we question the existence of "existence", implicitly, we question the existence of our "point of entry" into reality (namely, our self-awareness), meaning, we question whether our opinions even exist, and if they do not exist, then naturally, any type of argument or discussion, is pointless. Still, as I suggested in my text "Inconsistent", there is at least one additional ontological imperative, apart from the existence of "existence". To clarify, we must accept the existence and effects of metaphysically inconsistent elements as well, meaning, we must accept the existence of elements, which affect our reality, while not adhering to any type of rationality or rule. Moreover, as we will soon explain, because of the unique nature of this statement, we must apply this understanding to the fields of physics, biology, theology, and frankly, to any other discipline relating either directly or indirectly to the nature of our reality.
There are many methods, by which we can prove our last statement, but of all these methods, the one I find most compelling, is the one utilizing Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, as it is the shortest. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, any logical system, contains true statements, which cannot be proven within that logical system, and hence, the fact these statements are true, or even exist, is inconsistent with that logical system. What does that mean? Well, let us consider a basic principle of mathematics, namely, that the amount of natural numbers is infinite (meaning, that all the positive integers, such as 1, 2, 3, and so on, is an infinite set of values). We did not, and cannot, prove this statement. It is a basic mathematical axiom, not the product of a logical deduction. Moreover, being limited in the time we have to exist, we simply do not have enough time to verify the existence of an infinite amount of different natural numbers, and supposing our enumeration exceeds the amount of enumerable elements we will ever encounter in our lives (be it particles, or collections of particles), then arguably, some natural number are bound to be too big to ever consider. To clarify, some natural numbers are so big, we cannot gather (or enumerate) enough physical elements to represent them with, and supposing we cannot store them in our memory either, then arguably, the claim they exist, is nonsensical.
While the implications of our last example are minor, once we apply Gödel's incompleteness theorems to metaphysics, we learn a disturbing, yet imperative fact about our reality. To clarify, ultimately, what metaphysics discuss, are theories. Still, theories in metaphysics are more than just "ideas", as such theories attempt to define what are, and what is the makeup and rational, of the elements compiling our reality. If a metaphysical claim is correct, it implies, the conceptual semantic meaning of this claim represents our reality correctly. Therefore, we can assume, that even though we do not know what it is, or what it asserts, at any given time, there must be at least one metaphysical theory, which both represents our reality correctly, and whose explanatory span, is not lesser than that of any other metaphysical theory.
The question now becomes, "is this theory a logical system?" To explain, it is possible, the fullest explanation for the fundamentals of our reality, incorporates arguments, which contradict one another. For example, if we consider the metaphysical theory, which western monotheism reflects, it claims the existence of a "good," omniscient, and omnipotent god, and our free will, according to which, this god judges our moral virtue. Western monotheism suggests, that while god is "good", and can control all aspects of our reality, it cannot control our will, so to ensure we do "good". Therefore, western monotheism introduces an inescapable metaphysical contradiction.
Indeed, as such, western monotheism does not qualify as a consistent logical system. Nevertheless, the reason it does not qualify as a consistent logical system, is exactly because, it claims the existence of metaphysically inconsistent elements (such as our free will, for example), while had it removed this inconsistent elementary component from its explanatory corpus, it could no longer assert the western monotheist morality. To clarify, to "fix" this inconsistency, western monotheism would have to choose, either to reject the notion of free will, and as a result, reject the notion we are responsible for our actions, reject the notion of god being "good," hence, deeming it unworthy of our trust, or reject the notion of the western monotheist god's omnipotence, which in turn, could suggest, we should reconsider the authority of the western monotheist god to dictate our morality, as being inescapably "limited", there might be a different god, more powerful, and hence, more "worthy" of our religious devotion.
While indeed, the question of free will, within the context of western monotheism is a problematic issue, it is not "unique". Once we resort to rational analysis, any conceptual system in metaphysics, which fails to exhibit rational consistency, must yield a metaphysical inconsistency of some type. Still, as Gödel showed with his incompleteness theorems, the same applies to metaphysical theories, which qualify as consistent logical systems. To clarify, according to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, even if our metaphysical theory does not contradict itself even once, it must include true statements, which it cannot prove. Still, these are more than just "statements". Again, being a theory in metaphysics, these statements represent aspects of our reality, which according to the metaphysical theory at hand, should not be, as according to this theory, nothing justifies their emergence.
Intuitively, we could suggest, that perhaps, we can extend our metaphysical theory, so to explain these aspects of our reality, in a consistent manner. However, because Gödel’s incompleteness theorems apply to all logical systems, they must apply to our explanatory model, regardless if we extend it, so to solve any explanatory gap. In short, according to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, regardless of what we believe, and regardless of our skepticism, metaphysically, inconsistent elements must both exist, and affect our reality. Moreover, while arguably, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are but theories, and hence, we can doubt their validity, as I mentioned previously, there are other methods to prove this claim, which I already explained in my text "Inconsistent". To put long things short, metaphysically, inconsistency must exist.
At first glance, this conclusion seems harmless. We think "ok, so there are a few aspects of our reality, which we will never understand. Big deal." Still, the problem is that unlike conventional logical systems, when we discuss metaphysics, we are not discussing merely theories. We are discussing the fundamentals of our reality. It is the fundamentals of our reality, which must exhibit such inconsistencies. Moreover, because we deduced this conclusion through a purely logical discussion, it is objectively true. In other words, the existence of metaphysical inconsistencies in our reality, is a feature of our reality, not of our knowledge, or of our persuasion, and as such, it cannot be subject to skepticism.
Again, we might think, this is not a "big issue". To comprehend the full extent of this conclusion, we must comprehend the essence of metaphysically inconsistent elements. No element in our reality can limit metaphysically inconsistent elements, and hence, they are metaphysically limitless. They can be everywhere in the physical world at the same time, while never existing in the physical world, not even for the shortest duration. They do not adhere to the web of mechanical physical causality, and hence, they reside "out of time". Moreover, being a metaphysical imperative, rather than merely a definition on paper, the limitless nature of metaphysically inconsistent elements is more than merely "potential". Metaphysically inconsistent elements must always exhibit their metaphysical potency, meaning, they are actually "everywhere" in the universe, as they relentlessly "breach" the limitations of causality. Still, unlike for example, the western monotheist god, which allegedly, is limitless as well, these elements are truly limitless, and hence, issues such as "morality" do not apply to them, as a morality, which does not incorporate "obedience" to any "rule" whatsoever, not even to the rule of anarchy, is simply not a morality. Furthermore, while such elements are truly omniscient and omnipotent, and hence, capable of any feat, of which a limited being such as ourselves is capable, being "outside" of the web of causality, unlike us, they can accomplish such feats with no effort at all, as for "effort" to exist, it must exist "in time". This applies to physical and conceptual "efforts", and hence, while these elements know not the effort of "thought", they are capable of creating elements in our reality, more complex in their design than anything we could ever synthesize with manmade technology, and yes, being actively omnipotent, rather than merely potentially omnipotent, we can deduce, they are responsible for the emergence of life. To explain, even if an entity or element in our reality was to cause the emergence of life, being within our universe, this entity or element would be merely "carrying out the orders", which metaphysically inconsistent elements "issued". Considering this, we should note, that even though such metaphysically inconsistent elements are not "intelligent" in the traditional sense, being metaphysically limitless, they are perfectly capable of affecting our consciousness, in practically every manner, as "intelligent" or "emotional" as it may be.
You might wonder, how come you never heard of the existence of these metaphysically inconsistent elements. Well, honestly, I do not know. As we have just shown, their existence, is a fact. They are real, as real as you and me. Moreover, for all intended purposes, these metaphysically inconsistent elements are equivalent to gods, and for these reasons, in "Inconsistent", I chose to name these elements "the real gods". Indeed, not being "intelligent" in the traditional sense, or imposing us with a morality, such inconsistent elements do not satisfy our traditional concepts of gods. Nevertheless, metaphysically, this does not make them any "lesser." On the contrary, it makes them even more omnipotent, so omnipotent, that unlike traditional omnipotent gods, their omnipotence does not suggest any inconsistency within the understandable aspects of our reality, and if you require clarifications, with respect to this statement, I suggest you revisit my text "inconsistent".
As "inconsistent" suggests, the existence of the real gods is a fundamental aspect of our reality. It solves many questions, with respect to the origins of the universe, the essence of time, the vividness of our self-awareness, and many other "big questions". Moreover, unless we question the fundamental aspects of our reality, rarely does the existence of the real gods "change" much, with respect to our understanding of everyday life. To explain, the real gods were, are, and will be, always "there". They will not listen to us in our hour of need, and they will not prevent our happiness, but again, they are not passive observers. Quite simply, they are "too big to comprehend".
Nevertheless, when addressing the fundamental aspects of our reality, such as the origins of the universe, matter, our consciousness, etc., leaving the existence of the real gods "out of the picture", is simply "wrong". It is the same as making a surprise birthday party, and not inviting the guest of honor. It is irresponsible, misleading, and a cause for concern, especially when coming from "experts in the field", as it suggests, their arguments are fundamentally invalid. By the same coin, the existence of the real gods, discredits most of our common concepts of god, because as "Inconsistent" argues, as of yet, no religion cherishes, follows, acknowledges, or even mentions the real gods.
So what are the entities our religions worship and cherish? Should we doubt these? Well, let us begin, by analyzing what we know. Regardless if we believe, or follow, any religion, or if we (wrongly) believe, elements as powerful as gods do not exist, the idea of either the existence, or the attributes, of these entities, exists in our minds. As such, they exist as spiritual entities, meaning, as elements in our reality, which do not possess any physical attribute. To clarify, regardless if the gods our religions follow can appear as physical entities, the things in which we may believe, are not these physical manifestations, but rather their meaningfulness in our reality, and meaningfulness simply does not consist of matter. The conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) existence of all the gods we can ever think of, is a fact, which we cannot refute, as to refute this fact, we must know, what it is we refute, and by knowing, what it is we refute, we prove their spiritual (or alternatively, abstract) existence in our minds.
Therefore, if there is room for skepticism, it can only question the relation between these spiritual elements and entities, and physical reality. To clarify, again, being spiritual, it comes without saying, the gods in which we believe, affect our conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) existence. There is no point being skeptic about such effects. If we dream we meet god, or angels, being "only in a dream", it is perfectly "normal". From our experience, we know, that while our dreams can be very weird, as long as they are "just dreams", there is no point arguing against their strangeness. It is only once we claim, our dreams affect the physical world inexplicably, that there is room for our skepticism. Still, even such skepticism, may be unjustified. For example, if we consider popular religions, it is a fact, that many historic events occurred due to religious reasons, such as the crusades, for example. While surely, we can question whether the leaders, responsible for such historic events, were motivated by religious reasons, still, those they led, followed them for religious reasons, and hence, we can claim, the spiritual (or alternatively, conceptual) elements, in which these people believed, changed the physical world dramatically.
Still, obviously, this argument cannot shake our skepticism, as the fact religious and spiritual concepts changed human history, is not in question. Our skepticism is toward the validity of the information we have, with respect to the conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) principles, and the deities, which religions follow.
At first glance, it appears, there is no solution to this problem. However, once we comprehend that the existence of the real gods is a fact, and not a matter of our personal subjective persuasion, we learn, that in most cases, and in the case of western monotheism in particular, there is no room for skepticism. As far as western monotheism is concerned, the answer is no.
But why? Well, the problem is the western monotheist god's omnipotence. To clarify, intuitively, we could think, that the fact the western monotheist god is both omnipotent, and "good", marks it as somehow metaphysically "more potent" than the real gods, but it does not. To clarify, the western monotheist god is limited to "doing good", and to "establishing divine justice", while the real gods are both imminently real, and know no such limitations. As such, whatever divine justice the western monotheist god promises, it is prone to be disrupted by the real gods. In short, even in theory, as a spiritual, conceptual, or abstract entity, the western monotheist god is not omnipotent, and hence, skepticism is simply not required. As we have just shown, metaphysically, the attributes of the western monotheist god simply cannot be, hence, deeming the western monotheist religions invalid, and the same applies to any entity, element, or spiritual teaching, claiming the attribute of omnipotence, regardless of their specifics, be it the western monotheist god, the antichrist, a polytheist god, extra dimensionals, or what have you. Omnipotence is a quality "reserved" only to the real gods.
Still, this does not imply, the entire western monotheist conceptual corpus is invalid. It merely asserts, that our skepticism is called for. To clarify, there might still be entities, elements, or practices, which while metaphysically limited, may yield remarkable feats. Therefore, our skepticism can take 3 forms. First we may doubt the existence of entities, elements, or practices, which metaphysically, are more potent than those we know how to master currently, while not truly omnipotent. Secondly, we can question specific cases of these metaphysical capabilities (such as telepathy, faith healing, telekinesis, teleportation, time travel, etc.). Last, we can question, whether these metaphysical capabilities, justify our devotion. To clarify, ultimately, whatever metaphysical capabilities these entities, elements, or practices, harness, the real gods govern them as well, and hence, ultimately, such entities, elements, or practices, cannot "take credit" for their alleged superior metaphysical potency, any more than a book can take credit away from its author. Therefore, we should rightfully ask, why should we worship the slaves, rather than their masters? Why not worship the real gods?
Intuitively, we could think, this is a legitimate question, but the truth is, it is simply not a question. To clarify, allegorically, by existing, we already worship the real gods. The real gods "select" our actions, whether such "selections" reflect in our acts of free will, our undesirable behaviors, or even in our thoughts. There is simply nothing in our reality, which the real gods do not affect. Moreover, being both "unintelligent" in the traditional sense, and timeless, there is nothing we can do in the present to "please" the real gods, other than to simply exist. In short, the real gods, which according to "Inconsistent", are the true creators of our reality, are at the same time, both the only elements in our reality, truly worthy of our worship, and the only type of "gods", which does not require our attention.
Still, worship and religious devotion are not the only manners, by which we can interact with metaphysical superiority. If there are entities, elements, or practices, in our reality, which can for example, cure our diseases, or make us feel joy and happiness if we "follow their teachings", intuitively, "following their teachings" is no different from utilizing any "technology". Therefore, the question becomes, are there such entities, elements, or practices?
Well, again, we should analyze the possibilities. If we are discussing superior mechanical technology, its origins do not really matter. While new technologies can be intimidating, and often for a good reason (such as for example, in the case of nuclear technologies), with enough reasoning, we can find relatively good methods to utilize them. Therefore, skepticism should not play a significant factor, any more than it plays in any other discussion, with respect to new technologies. Just as with new technologies, some claims for metaphysical superiority, may be but manipulative hoaxes, while others may be "the real McCoy", and it is only through experimentation and application of such technologies, that we can determine which is which. Similarly, we have little problem accepting the possibility, that through "spiritual practices" such as meditation, yoga, or religious communion, we can achieve some type of psychological serenity.
Nevertheless, often, we remain skeptic toward such teachings. We sense there might be a deception involved. To clarify, many times, such practices attempt to go beyond psychology, beyond the neurological capabilities of our brain to sooth our biological body, as they suggest the feasibility of an alleged "connection" we can establish, with elements, somewhat "external" to our consciousness, such as "mother earth," "the universe," and ultimately, "god."
In other words, our problem is not with new technologies, or exotic psychological treatment methods. Our problem is accepting the feasibility of capabilities, which exceed the ones contemporary science offers, capabilities, where we do not know if, or exactly why they should "work", and to which we usually refer as "magic".
The notion of "magic" is the real cause for our skepticism, and for a good reason. Still, to prevent our skepticism from "backfiring", we should remember our previous conclusions. First, we must remember, that the existence of the real gods, is irrefutable. There must be physical and "spiritual" events, transpiring in our reality, without any causative explanation, meaning, events, which no prior condition predetermines, regardless if we are discussing physical, or psychological preconditions. This fact precedes any other fact about our reality, including the possibility of "magic". To clarify, while the notion of "magic" contends, that there are methods to manipulate our reality, beyond the limits that psychology and physical determinism impose, it does not suggest, such manipulations are beyond control. While possibly, not all of us can inflict them, and potentially, biological makeup plays a factor, when determining the "magical potency" of a being, theoretically, a being can control "magic", so to serve its interests. In contrast, metaphysical inconsistencies obey no law, physical, "spiritual", or "magical", and therefore, the fact we can spot possible metaphysical inconsistencies in our reality, does not prove anything, with respect to "magic". Secondly, again, we should remember, "magic" is not physical technology. It does not matter how grand, remarkable, or microscopic a technological gizmo may be, or what metaphysical capabilities it grants us. If it merely utilizes the laws of physics, it is not "magical", and our lack of understanding, with respect to its design and architecture, is irrelevant. Similarly, it does not matter how satisfying a "spiritual practice" may be. If it does not require a true "connection" with elements somewhat "external" to our consciousness, it is still psychology, biology, or neurology.
No. "Magic" is different from the real gods, mechanical technology, psychology, biology, and neurology, by the fact, it claims a merger between the world external to our consciousness, and the spiritual world, a two way metaphysical "bridge" between our internal mental worlds, such as the worlds appearing in our thoughts, dreams, and hallucinations, and the laws governing the worlds external to our consciousness, such as the laws of physics, for example. Therefore, the only issue, where skepticism is called for, is the essence of this metaphysical "bridge". To clarify, the existence of this "bridge" is obvious, as it allows us to sense the physical world, as a spiritual manifestation. For example, the existence of this metaphysical "bridge “becomes painfully evident, whenever we hit a table with our Twinkie. While the table does not enter our brain, its existence, and its painful consequences on our body, become painfully real, as these convert into spiritual elements in our minds. This fact is common knowledge, and hence, being skeptic about it, is unnecessary. Additionally, we should note, that any effect our consciousness may have, on elements we cannot "feel," either through our senses, or somehow "spiritually," are irrelevant to our existence, and hence, discussing the existence of such effects, is futile.
No. It is only once we reverse the "direction" of this metaphysical "bridge," that our skepticism rises, meaning, the ability to inflict physical changes with our minds, and the ability of spiritual elements, external to our consciousness, to affect our psyche, without the assistance of our physical senses. Still, even such refinement, is not enough. To explain, our thoughts and concepts, can surely manipulate the physical world. In fact, it is this capability, which allowed us to develop our technology, culture, and our social environment, and again, there is no point being skeptic about this fact. Still, these types of manipulations obey the restrictions the physical world imposes, as described in the universal laws of physics. To explain, such manipulations are limited to the changes we can inflict on our reality, using our biological bodies. Similarly, we have little problem accepting new conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) elements enter our consciousness, as it is through such "insertions," that we are inspired by new ideas. As long as we can retrace the logical, or emotional, path, according to which we learned our new ideas, it is not "magic", but rather intelligence, and ingenuity.
Still, "magic" contends to be more potent. "Magic" contends, our thoughts, our conceptual world, can inflict physical changes, while not using the capabilities of our biological body. Alternatively, "magic" contends, that the concepts entering our minds, are more than merely the product of our thoughts and experience. "Magic" suggests, we can achieve new understandings, through "spiritual links," with external intelligent "spiritual entities," providing us with knowledge, we should not possess, such as prophecies, telepathy, remote viewing, and the likes.
This is it. These serve as the core of our skepticism. Can we alter the physical world using only our minds? Can we extend our knowledge, beyond our understandings?
While we can hurry to attempt to answer these questions, first, we should note, it does not really matter. To explain, we are not physical entities. Our biological bodies may be physical, but our existence as consciousnesses is spiritual, and hence, to change our reality, we need not bother with the external world that much, as inevitably, it is our internal mental worlds that matter to us, suggesting we could "perfect it", without resorting to "magic", religion, or even technology. Alternatively, with enough wisdom, we can attain all we wish to attain, without the "spiritual assistance" of "magical beings," regardless if they offer us their help. Still, as we all know, our biological body makes it hard for us to "forget" our link with the external world, through sensations of pain, and there is no point denying this. Without food, we will feel hunger, we will feel pain, and there is no point in forcing such discomforts on ourselves. Furthermore, many times, our understandings are insufficient, such as when attempting to comprehend the reason, why an unfortunate event transpired to us, and it is only natural, we attempt to ease our confusion, with whatever means available to us, rational, technological, or "magical," as they may be. In fact, it is this curiosity, which allowed our culture and technology to evolve and progress, and hence, arguably, we would be wrong not to pursue such understandings.
Secondly, we should note, that these questions unify practically all the metaphysical perspectives, of which we are told today. If we consider religions, as we mentioned previously, no religion follows the real gods, as such following is both unnecessary and nonsensical. Still, religions discuss more than mere mechanical causality, or psychology. Religions tell us what we should do with our lives, how our thoughts and motivations change reality outside the scope of our consciousness. Moreover, many religions contend, that the "knowledge" they inherit to us, transcended from external intelligent "spiritual entities." For example, in western monotheism, god, a non-physical, hence, "spiritual" deity, tells us, if we do "good", we will be rewarded, and that if we "sin", we will be punished. Still, when doing a deed, we do not know, who will benefit, or suffer, from our actions. For example, we could help an old lady cross the street, only to time her unfortunate accident with a speeding bus a minute after. Considering this, we understand, that for religious morality, the results of our deeds are irrelevant. It is the intentions, motivating our deeds, that matter. These intentions originate from our consciousness, as spiritual elements, and which later, an external intelligent spiritual deity (namely, the western monotheist god) evaluates morally, and will affect our future existence, through the manner "god" will "respond" to our intentions. Indeed, many religions claim, divine judgment is "delayed" to the after-life. Nevertheless, such religions do not claim the after-life is "just a dream". No. Religions refer to the after-life as a "real place", not just an abstract idea. Alternatively, in Buddhism, while indeed, there is no "explicit evaluating intelligent spiritual element," still, such an element must exists, so to determine the manner, according to which we "reincarnate." In short, ultimately, only "magic" can enforce the morality religions dictate, not mechanical causality, not psychology, and certainly not the real gods. To summarize, religions utilize "magic" to establish their reign.
Still, make no mistake. Established religions are not alone in their "dependency on magic". The new age movement, of all its different flavors and messages, depends on "magic" as well. It does not matter how they explain their messages. It can be through arguments, suggesting we can change our reality, by strongly believing in specific notions, by discussing "higher states of consciousness," or by attempting to find neurological explanations to psychic abilities. Once we hear the notion, that our consciousness can manipulate physical reality, beyond the physical limitations of our biological body, or that we can "contact" intelligent spiritual elements, external to our consciousness, we can immediately deduce, we are told to believe in "magic". It does not matter if we hear of physical devices that "merge with our consciousness" (such as the ones suggested by U F O enthusiasts, including "the looking glass", "stargates", etc.). None of these devices are "technology". They are "magical", as allegedly, they rely on our conceptual, abstract, and spiritual mental capabilities to operate, while currently, we do not know, if artificial devices are metaphysically capable to yield such capabilities (even if indeed, in the chapter "changing the odds" of "Inconsistent" I suggested it may be possible). Alternatively, we can claim, the new age movement, revised an argumentative methodology to discuss "magic", without mentioning the term itself.
Actually, our last observation is not that surprising, as we can hardly find new age "thinkers" contending against the existence of "magic". Still, the truth is, the same can be said, with respect to contemporary empirical science. To explain, as we suggested previously, contemporary empirical science rejects the existence of metaphysical inconsistencies, affecting our reality. For some reason, "unintentionally", scientists, which are well versed in logic and analytic thinking, refuse to cross the logical deduction path, proving the existence of the real gods. While many (if not most) scientists are religious, and hence, accept the existence of god, they accept the existence of the gods popular religions endorse, which as we just explained, are "magical" beings, rather than the real gods. Still, even without believing in "magical" divinities, the very act of offering an explanation for our reality, while excluding the real gods from it, attests to an implicit relation with "magic". To clarify, contemporary science propagates the hidden notion, we can explore and unveil the metaphysical essence of our reality in its entirety, using our minds. In other words, contemporary science propagates the belief, that with the help of technology, our consciousness will be able to master all there is to master, suggesting that with enough time and research, we, humans, could achieve omnipotence, while again, omnipotence is already "reserved" for elements existing in our reality, namely, the real gods.
Surely, no specific scientist is this ambitious. Nevertheless, as a line of thought, the intention is there. Moreover, perhaps due to this attitude, many have attempted to "merge" "magic" with technology, conducting scientific research in the fields of telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, and many other fringe science research fields.
Indeed, some may argue, that "magic", is merely misunderstood "mechanics", meaning, that it is mechanically possible, to mold physical reality, using our thoughts, or that we can train, or extend, our biological senses, so to "contact" intelligent spiritual entities, external to our consciousness. Still, as of yet, I have not heard of a theory in physics, which cares to explain "magic", in the same rigorous manner, as that of mainstream physics. Honestly, there might never be such explanations. To clarify, to yield such rigorous explanations, we must establish uniformity, with respect to the concepts with which we think, while our individual subjective abstract concepts are radically different. One may hear the word "man" with a philanthropic attitude, while another will feel the opposite, and hence, while they will both hear the same sound, and be able to communicate, had they attempted to incorporate the term "man" into a "magical formula", the "spells" both would conjure, are bound to be radically different. For the same reason, it is quite possible, that even if we were to "extend" our senses, so to sense intelligent spiritual entities, external to our consciousness, we would not comprehend them, as their conceptual world would be too alien to ours.
Quite possibly, it is this subjectivity, which causes us to be skeptic toward "magic". Still, does "magic" exist, and if so, what can we achieve through "magic?" To clarify, even if our thoughts can alter physical reality, beyond the limitations our biological bodies impose, it does not mean "magic" grants us omnipotence. Again, omnipotence is already "reserved" for the real gods, so at the very least, we know the metaphysical "upper limit" of "magical potency". Furthermore, we should note, that regardless of our previous suggestion, that contemporary science carries a "magical flavor", as of yet, mainstream science has not presented any apparatus, which utilizes "magic". To clarify, a device that measures electrical surges in our brain, and responds accordingly, is not "magical". As I suggested in my text "Delta Theory", the abstract concepts with which we think, are not physical elements, and while the electrical surges in our brain may attest to brain activity, it is not brain activity that can create "magic", but rather the semantic meaning and meaningfulness of the things of which we think. Moreover, to those of you who are not familiar with contemporary artificial intelligence research, mankind has yet to yield even a single computer, which truly comprehends "meaning", in the same manner we do, and if you wish to understand why, I suggest you revisit both "Delta Theory" and "inconsistent". Alternatively, you can simply trust me when I say, that using contemporary technology, to construct machines that understand "meaningfulness" is impossible.
Additionally, we should learn to accept the fact, that metaphysical inconsistencies affect our consciousness. Moreover, the manner these affect our consciousness, carries the same "omnipotent flavor," which the real gods exhibit everywhere, and hence, such metaphysical inconsistencies are perfectly capable to extend our knowledge, beyond our understandings. Still, as we mentioned before, the real gods are not "intelligent" in the traditional sense. Moreover, being metaphysically inconsistent, they are not "merely spiritual", but rather, both, and neither, spiritual, and physical. As such, these "inspirations" do not qualify as "spiritual contact with external intelligent entities," and should not be confused with the notion of "magic," and as before, if you wish to understand this better, you should revisit my text "Inconsistent," and more specifically, the chapter "Rebellion."
Still, does "magic" exist? Well, it is hard to say. To explain, once we understand the real gods exist, we can correctly explain anything transpiring in our reality, as the "choice" of the real gods, and because metaphysically, the real gods are inconsistent, we may not be able to retrace some of the changes they inflict on our reality, to any causative justification. As such, the real gods leave explanatory gaps in our reality, which manipulative parties may be happy to harness, as false assertions for their alleged "magical potency". In fact, we can claim, that this is exactly what western monotheism has done in the Book of Genesis, coupling the capability to yield fundamental metaphysical inconsistencies (namely, creating a world out of nothing), with the western monotheist morality, and actually, most other religions have suggested similar couplings. Moreover, as "Inconsistent" suggests in the chapter "Angels," arguably, we can even find plausible explanations, why the real gods "allowed" these "conceptual exploitations."
In short, to answer this question, we need more than hearsay. To know if "magic" exists, we must "see magic in action". To clarify, we need to be able to witness a "magician", changing physical reality, aided only with the power of the mind, in a premeditated, preplanned manner. Alternatively, we need to experience telepathy, remote viewing, or be able to know the future, through a "magical practice" we can repeat at will.
Still, even witnessing, or experiencing, such capabilities, may not be enough. How will we know we witnessed "magic", and not technology? How will we know the "magician", does not hide a mechanical apparatus behind his cape, deceiving us to believe it is "magic?” How could we determine, whether we "read" another's mind, and not fell victim, to a well-crafted hoax? Should we so gullible to believe such nonsense? Actually, the same could be said, with respect to the more contemporary type of "magic", which I had the "pleasure" of witnessing, and I am referring to U F Os. To explain, if there is one unexplainable quality common to all U F O sightings, it is in the fact, U F Os seem to be able to zoom into hyper sonic speeds, without causing sonic booms. Usually, sonic booms cannot be avoided, as they occur due to the turbulence forming around flying crafts, and for that reason, many have suggested, these flying crafts do not cross between distances, but rather between dimensions.
As I explained in the text "2012, from Fears to Camelot", such a suggestion is absurd. Later, in the text "the Nephilim spirits hypotheses", I suggested a more metaphysically viable option, namely, that U F Os do not come from "higher dimensions", but rather, that U F Os exhibit insertions of spiritual elements, originating from our consciousness (or better said, the dimension of consciousness) into the physical world, or into the impression it leaves in our consciousness.
Still, is that the only option? Of course not. Just as U F Os may utilize yet unknown extraterrestrial technology, they may just as well reflect an innovation in manmade aviation. Alternatively, it is possible, that for some reason, someone decided to create them using optical illusions of some type. In short, first-hand experience proves nothing, as even I, after witnessing U F Os with my very eyes, cannot help but remain skeptic, with respect to what I saw, and the reason for its appearance.
In short, while theoretically, it may be possible to prove the existence of "magic", being naturally skeptic, perhaps it is not the right question to ask. To explain, if we can see proof for the existence of "magic" in front of our eyes, yet still not believe "magic" exists, or believe in the existence of "magic" without witnessing any proof, it is safe to say, proof is not the issue, and actually, considering the inherent subjectivity of "magic", it is not that surprising. It is only by penetrating a person's mind that we can prove something is "magical", and only through telepathy, or alternatively, "magic", can we penetrate the mind of another, hence, yielding a tautological argument.
Therefore, regardless of our level of skepticism, we should not seek proof "magic" exists. We should only ask questions, whose answers we can believe. Moreover, if we wish to actually learn something about our reality, rather than affirm our speculations, we should only ask questions, whose answer we can verify objectively, and as we just explained, according to our definitions, we can affirm the existence of "magic" only subjectively.
Actually, this ambivalence should not surprise us. As we suggested previously, most (if not all) of the gods we know from religions, are "magical deities" (rather than the real gods), and therefore, in many ways, the question whether "magic" exists or not, is similar to the question, "does god exist?", a question, which has troubled humanity throughout history, with no resolve. Moreover, the subjectivity of "magic" can shed some light, as for the reason, why some can be sure the god they follow exist, whilst others may dismiss the option altogether. Our preconceptions, or alternatively, the spiritual entities in our minds, determine how we interpret our reality, causing some of us to comprehend the existence of divine reasoning, where others see but chaos. By the same coin, this variance can cause some of us to witness spiritual apparitions as U F Os, or technology, whilst others may call them angels, or demons.
Still, the span of the question, with respect to the existence of "magic", stretches beyond theology. To explain, usually, in theology, we attempt to explore a selected group of "magical entities". For example, while western monotheism discusses quite a large ensemble of "magical deities", such as god, angels, demons, etc., it does not discuss the Greek polytheist gods, at least not directly.
The question, with respect to the existence of "magic" is much broader, and hence, its implications are much broader as well. To explain, only if the answer is "yes", is there a point to ask any other question in theology, rather than satisfy with an anthropological discussion. Moreover, by providing a valid answer to this question, we can actually better our understanding, with respect to our personal lives. If we could answer "yes", we would increase the amount of options we have to navigate our lives, in many disciplines now reserved for technology, whilst possibly adding many new perils. If we could answer "no", we could rid our society and culture, from some of its most notorious habits and dictators. With such a huge ensemble of significant possibilities, we should attempt to do better than remain "skeptic", while leaving all possibilities equally valid.
Still, our motivation to solve this question "once and for all", does not help either. We require a new method of evaluation, one independent of the possible solution we will find. Only such a method has the potential to elevate our understanding, beyond the impenetrable barrier of skepticism.
Therefore, let us reevaluate our history, as perhaps, with our new understandings regarding the metaphysical essence of "magic", we can extract new and necessary conclusions. Considering the definition we suggested previously, we can find many references to "magic", within our culture, mythologies, historical archives, and museums. While indeed, by itself, this does not prove the involvement of actual "magic", still, this abundance leaves much evidence to analyze and extrapolate, that is, if we know what we are looking for. To explain, naturally, we should not search for evidence, attesting to the existence of "magic", because as we explained previously, our skepticism can easily dismiss such evidence. No. What we should search for is "unintentional evidence", meaning evidence, which our ancestors left, not to consciously transfer a "message", but rather as an unintentional side effect of the "truth" behind the obvious aspects and motivations for the evidence we have. To explain, if for example, we see an actor smoking a cigarette in a Hollywood movie, the fact we can see this actor smoking, does not suggest a real smoking habit. In contrast, if we find this actor wearing a nicotine patch, we can safely assume the smoking habit is genuine, even more so, as in the days of the wild west, such nicotine patches were not yet invented. In other words, we should search for evidence, which is inconsistent with the "formal magical explanation", yet still attests to the involvement of "magic", evidence, which whoever left it, would have preferred not to leave, as leaving it, somewhat contradicts the original motivation, why such evidence exists.
Still, again, first, we should refine our understanding, with respect to what it is exactly we seek. In the text "The Nephilim Spirits Hypotheses", I suggested one metaphysical explanation for "magic", through what I referred to as "abnormal spirits manipulations". As I suggested, while such "abnormal spirits" are not that different from the normal spiritual elements appearing in our minds (such as inbound sensory stimulations, memories, etc.), they possess an additional quality, allowing them to utilize, or better said, exploit, the metaphysical attributes of the dimension of consciousness, along with the metaphysical inconsistencies transpiring in our psyche, in what we would consider "abnormal manners." In the text "Inconsistent" I named these "spiritual metaphysical inconsistencies" as "demonic influences", not to be confused with the "magical" demons appearing in our religions. No. Metaphorically, the "demonic influences" to which "Inconsistent" refers, are somewhat similar to the "metaphysical fingers" of the real gods, as they affect our internal mental worlds, or alternatively, our "spiritual existence", molding our lives in inconsistent manners. In fact, it is these "demonic influences," to which we referred previously, as the manners the real gods can cause our knowledge, to exceed beyond our understandings. In addition, according to "Inconsistent", our "demonic influences" are the metaphysical enablers, allowing the physical world to affect our spiritual existence. As such, while indeed farfetched, it is still possible, our "demonic influences" may serve as metaphysical enablers for the realization of "magic", be it to achieve telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, or what have you. Still, as we know from our experience, abilities such as telepathy are not "normal", regardless of the possible evolutionary benefits they promise, suggesting evolutionary progression along the path of "magical capabilities" brings more harm than good, and hence, natural selection did not favor our "magical evolution", even if such evolution was possible.
Indeed, to compile these hypotheses, I relied on common superstitions and hearsay, and as such, there is no reason to take these hypotheses seriously. Nevertheless, metaphysically, these hypotheses are possible. Moreover, as of yet, they provide the only explanation for "magic", which relies on a consistent metaphysical foundation, and hence, while surely speculative, when selecting a theoretical basis, according to which we should analyze "magic", to the best of my knowledge, it is our best choice. In addition, because these hypotheses rely on the metaphysical foundation both "Delta Theory" and "Inconsistent" suggest, it is very much alien to the metaphysical foundation religions offer, and hence, these hypotheses provide us with a relatively non-biased and objective perspective. To explain, these hypotheses do not attempt to provide us with "magical teachings", and do not support any religion, or preexisting school of thought, and as such, they provide a much needed objectivity, in a conceptual realm governed by subjectivity.
Naturally, being this "alien" to religious and "magical" "teachings", we would be surprised to find our metaphysical foundation "echoing" in historical records of "magical practices". Therefore, the more we will find our historical records of "magical practices" assert these hypotheses, the more we will have reason to accept, that the reason for this, is quite simply because, it really does attest to the existence, or essence, of "magic", even if its historical conjurers were unaware of the true metaphysical essence of their actions. Indeed, this method of analysis can hardly satisfy the scientific standards for empirical proof, and should not be taken too seriously. Nevertheless, considering our previous conclusion, that potentially, we could never prove the existence or inexistence of "magic", and considering the necessity and significance of answering this question, arguably, it serves as a reasonable solution. Still, again, it is not "proof", and does not qualify as justification, for radical practical applications, for, or against, the practice, or abolishment, of "magic".
Moreover, again, we should remember, that as we concluded previously, "magic" is inherently subjective, and hence, we simply cannot prove it exists. To explain, even if "magic" requires our conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) cognitive capabilities, and even if spiritual elements cannot manipulate physical elements, or "contact" external intelligent spiritual entities, it is possible, that the manner our thoughts alter the neurological functionality of our biological (or alternatively, physical) brain, propagates physical changes in our reality, in manners exceeding the ones of which contemporary science knows, and actually, this possibility is quite popular among new age "thinkers," suggesting our thoughts propagate "frequencies," which can be exploited in various manners. In other words, it is possible, that in the context of our current scientific knowledge (or perhaps, even paradigm), while a phenomenon may appear to us as "magical", in actuality, it is as physically "normal", as the ability of our brain to control the movement of our biological body. To clarify, while the last statement does not suggest the semantic meaning of our abstract (or alternatively, spiritual) concepts exists physically, it is possible, each such concept leaves a unique "physical footprint", which through activities usually associated with "magic", can be exploited, to achieve goals we cannot achieve otherwise. Still, being physical, such "footprints" will obey the laws of physics as all other physical phenomena, meaning, we could retrace such changes to physical dispositions, which potentially, we could simulate without a "spiritual component". In other words, such "footprints" must be "convertible" to "spiritless" technology. Only if such conversion is impossible, while still "spiritually possible" and controllable, could we assert the existence of "magic". Still, because potentially, we could forever extend scientific knowledge, and our understanding of our reality, and because as of yet, we have found no metaphysical imperative demanding or contradicting the existence of "magic", it is safe to assume, the existence of "magic" will forever be subject to skepticism.
Considering our previous definitions, we can safely claim, that regardless if "magic" exists or not, many (if not most) of us attempt to practice "magic". To clarify, once we comprehend that the divinities religions follow are "magical deities", and that the morality religions dictate, can only be enforced through "magic", practically any religious follower becomes a "magic practitioner". Still, only a few of those attempting to practice "magic" are aware of the metaphysical nature of their habits. Moreover, in many religions, such as Judaism for example, the practice of "magic" is forbidden, while again, despite an arguable similarity between the Jewish concept of god, and the real gods, Judaism depends on the existence of "magic", to assert the validity of its teachings, similarly to as in all other western monotheist religions.
Still, regardless of the awareness a "magic practitioner" has to the metaphysical nature of such practices, the motivation to practice "magic", is uniform. We practice "magic", to feel "better", be it to feel happier, more joyful, hopeful, or "complete". Indeed, in the realm of "black magic" and voodoo, "magic" is often used to harm other individuals, through hexes and curses. Nevertheless, such harm is done intentionally, so to alleviate anger or resentment, or possibly, to satisfy the sadistic tendencies, of the person conjuring such "magic", or of the person who "hires the magical skills" of the individual conjuring it.
Still, regardless of any devious reasons to conjure "magic", again, "magic" contends to provide us with satisfaction, and as such, we would expect "magic" to be a joyful practice, not that different from the utilization of beneficial technology. To explain, whenever we attain a new technological gizmo, be it an electronic device, a car, a computer game, or what have you, temporally, we become happier. We "play with it" until it bores us, and when it does, we find a newer "gizmo" to take its place. We are not required to "suffer" so to enjoy its benefits. Indeed, some goods (such as cars, for example) are expensive, and hence, require we work hard to save the finances we need to purchase them, which in many times, can be quite unpleasant. Nevertheless, such discomforts are not mandatory, as we are perfectly capable of extracting joy from technology, even without such hardships (such as for example, when downloading software, music, or videos, for free, from the internet).
Not so is the case with "magic". Throughout human history, "magic" has always coupled with discomfort and pain. If we consider ancient civilizations, the idea of sacrifice, repeatedly appears in religious and "magical" rituals, be it animal sacrifices, blood sacrifices, or even human sacrifices. Indeed, even though the practice of sacrifice persisted in biblical Judaism, through religious animal sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem, in western monotheism's contemporary incarnations, such sacrifices are hardly practiced. Nevertheless, the evolution of western monotheism, did not cause it to decouple from pain and discomfort, but rather, to change its format. Instead of causing pain in a straightforward manner, western monotheism (as well as many far eastern religions) promotes asceticism, which while surely not as "painful" as being burned alive on an altar, it is still quite annoying, if not utterly frustrating. For example, over the course of its history, the manner western monotheism dealt with homosexuality, resulted with a collection of mental sores and disorders, due to sexual repression. Indeed, western monotheism has its opposition, such as Satanism, paganism, and black magic, and hence, we could have expected, these would wish to decouple themselves from pain, in an attempt to win the hearts of new religious followers. However, when it comes to pain and discomfort, there is no opposition whatsoever. On the contrary, in Satanism for example, the requirement for pain is heightened, to the extent it results with rape, blunt humiliations, and even a return to the old practice of human sacrifice.
While indeed, this review of "magic" is short and limited, and perhaps, some incarnations of "magic" are less "painful" than the ones we mentioned, arguably, the reason we did not mention them, is quite simply because they are marginal, and hence, such "magic" is prone to be less potent, or relevant.
Considering this, we should ask ourselves, "How come?" How come so many people accept this pain on themselves, so to gain a reward, whose very existence is questionable?
Well, the most common answer to this question, coming from skeptic perspectives, is that through this "suffering", we convince ourselves of the meaningfulness of the "magic" in question, hence, strengthening our faith, that such "magic" exists, even without proof. In many ways, this argument is valid, as indeed, there is an undoubtable link between the conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) elements troubling us, and those that are meaningful and important for us. Another argument, common to skeptic perspectives, is that through such suffering, the religious and spiritual teachers endorsing the "magic" in question, strike fear in our hearts, and which as a result, make us reluctant to question their authority. Again, in many ways, this argument is correct, as indeed, the prospect of pain causes fear, and fear is a useful method to invoke us with obedience.
Still, as convincing as these arguments may be, they are somewhat lacking. Such arguments promote the perspective, that unless we are skeptic toward "magic", we must be gullible idiots, while there are many worthy scullers, who follow religious teachings, and which as we explained previously, are but another manifestation of the practice of "magic". Moreover, arguably, both arguments are elitist and misanthropic, as if skeptics are "radically better people", a claim, which in most cases, does not hold in the test of time. Still, supposing "magic" does not exist, there are no other options to go on, are there?
Well, not necessarily. What can we learn if we let go of our skepticism? What if "magic" exists? Why would a religion force suffering on its followers, if its teachings are valid, and its "magic" is "working?” Why would a religion wish to hurt its followers? Why not "deliver the magic for free?"
Again, we can answer this question with misanthropic arguments, suggesting religious leaders are sick individuals, addicted to the power they have over their followers, and indeed, in many cases, this argument is valid. Nevertheless, many religious leaders, and practitioners of "magic" in general, are decent and caring individuals, yet still preach the principles of pain and discomfort. So again, why is it like that?
Well, let us delay answering this question, as this is not the only problematic aspect of "magic". For some reason, "magic" repeatedly contends against conventional technology, and objective knowledge. Unlike scientific, cultural, and technological pursuit, the "knowledge" required to perform "magic", is based on ancient texts, which hardly suit our rapidly changing life styles. For example, in the Jewish tradition (which again, as we explained previously, depends on "magic" for its moral enforcement), religious followers are not allowed to turn lights on, or off, during rest days (such as Sabbath, for example), as this action is associated with lighting up a fire, which according to Judaism, is considered "work." One cannot help but wonder, why on earth would any person be so stupid, not to comprehend the easiness, by which electric lights are triggered. While obviously, we can claim, this is but another method, by which power mongering religious leaders, attain their egocentric "kick", still, we must remember, others must later follow these religious teachings, individuals, not any less cognitively capable, than you or me. Why should religious leaders risk their following, by setting up idiotic religious rules? What do they have to gain by doing so? Moreover, by keeping a society technologically outdated, such societies risk being overrun by more technologically, scientifically, and culturally advanced civilizations.
So again, why take such risks? What is it that religions have to "lose" by adapting to scientific, technological, or cultural progress? To clarify, as we explained previously, religions rely on "magic", and "magic" relies on our spiritual existence, while apart from cultural progress, the progress we discussed previously, does not even contend to question spirituality. It simply avoids the issue altogether. Therefore, again, what do "magic practitioners" have to lose? Furthermore, while indeed, individuals practice "magic" outside the realm of religions as well, still, they too suffer from the same conceptual rigidness, and this rigidness, being both "outside" of mainstream culture, and yet still "stuck" in ancient ways and habits, is most definitely analogous to the "nicotine patch metaphor", which we discussed previously. Considering this, we should note, the same applies to the ancient aliens narrative, suggesting what we now consider as magical events, were but utilization of misunderstood extraterrestrial technology. Why on earth should we assume, the U F Os seen today, use the same technology witnessed thousands of years ago? Should we not expect our alleged extraterrestrial ancestors to learn a few new tricks since those ancient times? And why do contenders of the ancient aliens narrative repeatedly link with spiritual teachings? Why contend to such questionable assertions?
As we explained before, we cannot answer these question with certainty. Nevertheless, considering our previous conclusions, when analyzed according to the metaphysical foundation we selected previously, we can provide a reasonable, yet unsettling explanation to these "nicotine patches".
Let us begin, with the coupling of "magic" with pain, and discomfort. What is pain? What is its metaphysical essence? Is there something in the metaphysical essence of pain, which could be useful, when conjuring "magic?"
Well, apparently, yes. When we feel pain, be it traumatic physical pain, psychological pain, extreme unfulfilled desire, or even boredom, metaphysically, something truly unexplainable happens. Somehow, within our internal mental world, which exists independently from the external physical world, appears a sensation, which we do not want to sense, and which is not of our doing. It is our biological (or alternatively, physical) body, which "inserts" this spiritual entity, into our consciousness. Still, unlike sensory data, such as our sense of sight, to which we can remain indifferent, pain "forces" its meaningfulness on our psyche. In fact, as "Inconsistent" argues, it is this feature of our consciousness, which marks it as metaphysically "incompatible" with any type of consistent apparatuses, such as contemporary computers, for example. To clarify, pain breaches the metaphysical independence between the physical world, and our internal mental worlds. Extreme pain can easily "snap us out" of dreams, or alternatively, out of spiritual worlds, which have no physical manifestation. As such, it is possible, pain can be exploited for the purpose of conjuring "magic". To explain, supposing pain yields temporal metaphysical inconsistencies, during the time pain is inflicted, the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies may become "tangible" to our spiritual existence. If so, it suggests, that through pain, for a short time, we may possess the metaphysical capabilities of the real gods, such as being in several places at the same time, overriding the laws of physics, creating matter out of nothing, and the likes, and theoretically, the collection of these capabilities, once put to desired purpose, can provide us with "magic". To clarify, supposing we manage to "harness" the metaphysical potency of metaphysical inconsistencies, so to realize our conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) desires, we need no longer satisfy the laws of physics or causality, as metaphysical inconsistencies require no precondition, so to realize any post condition. Nevertheless, again, to achieve this metaphysical capability, we require metaphysical inconsistencies to be both "present", and at our disposal, while according to "Inconsistent", the only metaphysical inconsistency we can inflict at will, is that of pain, which as "Delta Theory" argues, is a fundamental metaphysical feature of our consciousness, preceding, as well as compiling, our sense of pleasure, our motivations, our wills, and our desires. To explain, while indeed, it seems strange, why the real gods, which as we mentioned previously, are so reluctant to obey any "rule," would allow us to exploit their metaphysical potency, still, as "Inconsistent" argues, there is a reason, why the real gods would "want" to provide "access" to these, as through such "access," they can increase the manners by which they can manipulate our reality, hence, increasing their metaphysical potency. Moreover, being omnipotent, the real gods can easily revoke such "access," if it negates their "interests."
While again, this hypothesis may seem outrageously insane, still, metaphysically, it is possible, and more importantly, it is a metaphysically consistent possibility. To explain, this hypothesis does not suggest any metaphysical inconsistencies in our reality, other than those, which are self-evident, namely, the existence of pain, and the real gods. Still, obviously, it is not enough. To clarify, we all feel pain during our lives, and it definitely does not make us god-like, omnipotent, or anything of the sort. If anything, it makes us miserable and bitter. No. Obviously, the pain of one person is not "potent enough" to yield "magic". Still, possibly, the pains of many, are.
Yes, I know what you are thinking, and I agree. This hypothesis sounds absurdly hysterical, and farfetched. Nevertheless, again, metaphysically, it is possible. Moreover, it explains the coupling of pain and "magic", as supposing this hypothesis is correct, the reason pain is coupled with "discomforting" religious traditions and rituals, is simply because, religions may be using the collective pains of their followers, to conjure the "magic", which causes their followers to follow them in the first place. To explain, while this "magic" may yield physical phenomena, such as those mentioned in fantastic stories of "magic", it may just as well yield psychological phenomena, causing religious followers to follow their religions, despite the discomforts they force upon them. Alternatively, we can claim, that this is but a different perspective, over the same skeptic arguments we provided previously, for the coupling of pain and "magic", as the means by which religions, and other "magical practices", convince their practitioners of the meaningfulness and significance of their "magical habits".
Still, as we explained previously, "magic", is subjective. This feature of "magic" imposes a problem, when attempting to "harness" the metaphysical capabilities granted by the sufferings of many individuals. To clarify, for "magic" to exist, it must link specific subjective conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) elements, with relevant physical changes, or between several consciousnesses. Therefore, if we feel pain, or alternatively, when we introduce an abundance of metaphysical inconsistencies into our psyche, while our conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) makeup, is too incompatible with that of the "magician" attempting to "harness" our pains, it might deem such pains "useless". In other words, it is possible, that to conjure "magic", not only must many individuals feel pain, but they must share the same conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) understandings as well. Alternatively, using "skeptic jargon", to become a religion, we must believe our shared existential discomforts, occur due to our shared "enemy", be it another nation, the forces of evil, demons, or what have you.
Considering this, it is possible, that this is the real motivation for the common religious and "magical" conceptual stagnation. To clarify, it is possible, there is no real "antagonism" between technology, science, and "magic", but rather, antagonism, or better said, a "conflict of interests", between "magic" and conceptual pluralism, as such pluralism can seriously damage the metaphysical potential of "magic". As such, it is possible, religious and "magical" teachings, attempt to create conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) uniformity, among as many individuals as possible, resulting with misunderstood messages of pacifism, which in actuality, may be but an oratory "trick", used to enforce conceptual synchronization, with respect to our shared discomforts. Moreover, this can explain the existence of "holy wars" throughout human history, as it is possible, they were conducted by "rivaling magicians", each attempting to enhance their magical potency, by enlarging the amount of individuals, suffering for the religion they lead.
Actually, "the truth" may be even more "devious." To explain, it is possible, that throughout human history, religious wars were not conducted, merely to increase the amount of individuals following religions, for the reasons we just mentioned. As monstrous as it may sound, it is just as possible, it is the pains of war, that was their "real goal." To clarify, by sending thousands, millions, if not billions, into battle, religions, and religious leaders, ensured their "supply" of "magical potency", as they "milked" our civilizations, through physical and psychological torture, while brainwashing us with ideals of martyrism, through personal sacrifice. While surely, this possibility sounds diabolic and inhumane, we must remember, that if indeed, there is an imminent link between "magic", religion, and pain, we should not expect such "masters of magic", to be sensitive to human sufferings, any more than a predator is sensitive to the sores of its prey. Actually, this can explain our otherwise inexplicable historical records of the Spanish inquisition. To clarify, supposing the link between "magic", religion, pain, and conceptual uniformity, truly exists, it becomes trivial to explain, why any religion would wish to ensure individuals accept the existence of their gods, or alternatively, their conceptual corpus, through torture, as it is the most "blunt" expression, of the principles we just discussed. Moreover, considering this hypothesis, the shroud of mystery, surrounding religions, and the concept of "magic", should not surprise us either, as had we knew, that "magic" exploits our suffering so bluntly, quite surely, we would revolt against all "magical" and religious practices. In fact, considering how "shocking" the truth may be, it is quite possible, it is our religions themselves, which attempt to make us skeptic of the existence of "magic", as the ambivalence, with which skepticism results, is perhaps, the most convenient method for "magical practices" to thrive, preventing contemporary technological and analytic thinking, from comprehending the horrors "magical practices" have inflicted over our civilizations. Moreover, considering our previous question "Why have you not heard of the real gods before?", it is very possible, religious establishments prevent academic pursuit from realizing the existence of the real gods, as it is by realizing their existence, that the horrors of "magic" become apparent. Moreover, by discrediting the existence of "magic", they can ensure, they will not suffer from judicial punishment, as regardless how much we will suffer for "magical practices," all in all, it is just "magic." It does not exist, does it? Actually, this possibility is plausible, even if "magic" does not exist, because as we explained before, the existence of the real gods discredits all the notions of gods, which contemporary religions endorse, hence, somewhat discredits the "right" of these religions to exist.
Indeed, this hypothesis sounds too "devious" and "evil" to be true, and I should confess, my acquaintance with religious individuals taught me, that for the most, religious individuals, are decent and kind. Nevertheless, it is possible, this is but a partial aspect of religions and "magic", knowledge reserved for those at their highest "ranks", and hence, it is very much possible, that in the "lower ranks", religious leaders, and "magical practitioners", are completely oblivious to the metaphysical nature of their practices, just as in any pyramid social structure. Furthermore, as before, if we wish it, we can "remove" the magical context of this hypothesis, and it will remain viable, as it expresses the obvious, meaning, that for a religion to thrive as a cultural and social source of power, many must follow it, and for a religion to keep its integrity, many must follow similar practices, regardless if this following does not help our selfish interests. We are social creatures, and as such, sacrifice of the few, can make us stronger, as a society.
Still, supposing our hypothesis, with respect to the metaphysical existence and essence of "magic", is true, the sad thing is, these conclusions apply to all types of "magic", be it well established religions, paganism, new age cults, extra-dimensional grey visitors, fairytales, unicorns, or what have you. To explain, according to the hypothesis we provided, they are all equally interested in our pain and discomfort. While they promise us "love", this "love" is not that different, from the love bears have to fish. They view us as "batteries", empowering their "magical potency", not that different from the manner the Hollywood movie "The Matrix" depicted it. These are all methods of deception, of which no "magical party" is innocent.
Christianity tells us it is fighting demons, fighting the devil. Skeptics think it is a load of bullocks, but it is possible, such skeptics are wrong. To explain, Christianity may indeed fight against rivaling "magical forces", to which we usually refer as "demons", or "the devil", and these "magical forces" may indeed wish to hurt us, but if so, then so does Christianity! New age cults attempt to persuade us to their pacifist messages, making us think we are all "one consciousness", while not telling us, humans must hurt, so to conjure their "magic," and considering the possible essence of "magic", their claims, humanity is "hurting the earth", are so cynical, it is monstrous. They tell of our extra-dimensional inter-galactic "friends," watching over us, while hiding the real reason for their emergence. To explain, historical records show, that U F Os, as well as "spiritual beings" referred to as "angels", have repeatedly appeared wherever there was war and suffering, yet for some reason, we do not seem to "connect the dots" and understand, it is our suffering that attracts them, as according to the text "The Nephilim Spirits Hypotheses," they are all "magical". In fact, it may be possible, atheism and science may be "pulling the same trick," because as we suggested previously, by denying the existence of the real gods, they create "quasi-magical" perspectives, whose exploiters are hard to determine, and quite possibly, it is no other than the infamous illuminati, of which we are told, wish society to become oppressive, and without conceptual (or alternatively, spiritual) freedom. Hum...I wonder why...
In short, supposing our hypothesis, with respect to the essence of "magic" is correct, there is no room for skepticism. "Magic" is no good. Either it does not exist, and then, all the arguments supporting its practice are invalid, or it exists, but in that case, things are even worse, as it is nothing less than the realization of a horror movie. It is quite literally "hell on earth." It is a self-destructive practice, inflicting suffering on our lives, and while surely, we all wish for "magic" to make us happy, or to make our wishes come true, the truth is we are best to avoid it, in whatever format it takes, just as our biological evolution might have learned "the hard way." Indeed, just as the controlled use of narcotics can bring color to our lives, controlled use of "magic", can add additional "flavors" to our reality. Nevertheless, it is addicting. Moreover, due to the link we suggested between "magic" and pain, "magic" is prone to be more compelling to sadistic individuals, and hence, it is no wonder "magical practices" are more common to Satanist cults, so outspokenly sadistic. Indeed, "spiritual teachings" have made many individuals feel better, and as such, may provide us with useful understandings. Still, if we cannot detach these from their "magical component," it is very much possible, they merely "lure us" into a sadistic, self-destructive, practice, and if you require proof for this possibility, simply review the amount of times, such practices resulted with abuse, and mass suicide.
Naturally, I do not expect you to take this advice seriously, as either you would think, accepting the existence of "magic" is idiotic, or you would not agree on our premises, namely, the claim the gods of our religions are not omnipotent, but rather "magical", and that the metaphysical connection between pain and "magic" is inherent. While honestly, I do not care if we disagree, still, if you are among the latter, and you dislike the pain and suffering of others (and I truly wish you are), I suggest you challenge it. Understand the metaphysical foundation which "Delta Theory", "Inconsistent", and "The Nephilim Spirits Hypothesis" suggest, and find what makes you believe they are false. Suggest a metaphysically consistent alternative to the infliction of pain, for the willing preplanned insertion and effects of metaphysical inconsistencies, one that would require neither pain, pleasure, desire, conceptual uniformity, or any other issue we mentioned. Alternatively, provide an alternate consistent metaphysical foundation, one at least as rigorously explained, as the one "Delta Theory", "Inconsistent", and "The Nephilim Spirits Hypothesis" suggest. To clarify, the understandings, which writing this text left in me, are quite literally sickening, and for my own peace of mind, I would be more than happy to prove them wrong, but somehow, I believe, you would recline the challenge.
Still, what will remain, once we remove "magic" from our lives? What will "keep us going?" Is it not "magic" that makes life worth living?
Well, it may have been in the past, but there are alternatives. As we mentioned previously, we have the real gods, which undoubtedly, can color our lives more vividly than any "magic". As "Inconsistent" suggested, by mastering our ability to "demon cast," we can become "dragons", but to understand what that means (and I can assure you, you have no idea what that means), I suggest, you revisit "Inconsistent", and learn the manners we can exploit metaphysical inconsistencies, not to change our reality through "magic," but rather, by getting "our hands dirty," and with hard labor, enrich our reality with the marvels of artistic creation, and human ingenuity. Learn of the real technologies, waiting around the corner, for us to discover, allowing us to master the metaphysical essence of life, rather than our consciousness, so to reach technological abilities, beyond our wildest dreams, that require neither "magic" or pain. There is so much more for us to discover, other than remain oppressed by "magical forces." Seriously, we simply have no clue.

No.
The question is not what we will do without "magic."
The question is, are you real enough to handle it?
Are you real enough to handle the real gods?