0c10bb40   
   XPost: alt.magick, alt.pagan.magick, alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: glass@panix.com   
      
   In article <398c5c95-db67-4f45-b26e-43e4c9625536@13g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,   
   Tom   wrote:   
      
   >If you're focused only on results, yes.   
      
   What can we focus on that doesn't result from something?   
      
   >Perhaps the most common act for which we expect no result is singing   
   >in the shower.  Yet we do it nonetheless.   
      
   Sure. Birds do it. Bees do it. We [indulge in phatic communication].   
      
   >Hmmm.  How would we determine that the world is a representation of   
   >its own will?  It sounds like postulate to me.   
      
   But an analytic one.   
      
   People go on endlessly about the relation between will and results because   
   it figured highly in a book or two they read as children.   
      
   There is even a tendency to conflate the "will" as that aspect of desire   
   that gets results, much as a brewer's "science" achieves reproducibility:   
      
   "Magick is willed action. Success is thy proof."   
      
   OK.   
      
   So reverse that relation to see whether it holds up in the mirror of   
   reflexive logic.   
      
   "Unintended results are not products of [my] will."   
      
   But they are still "results" -- extant in the world -- so they are still   
   nominally "magick," just not mine.   
      
   Whatever is out there that is not "me," we call "the world."   
      
   "The world," after all, is whatever goes on in my absence.   
      
   When the magician succeeds, he or she has willed some aspect of the world   
   into being.   
      
   When the magician fails, something else wills it so.   
      
   I conflate the world-willing other with the world in itself in order to   
   avoid needlessly multiplying hypothetical entities, and because I like the   
   Schopenhauer gag that emerges.   
      
   Happy to be proved wrong.   
      
   >Everyone is drumming in 4/4 time but one guy drums in 3/4 time.  He's   
   >a criminal.  So what is he when others also drum in 3/4 time?   
      
   Joe Oz wants to kill his boss and does so. He gets the lethal injection.   
   Aleister Crowley says Joe Oz was acting out of a false will-to-murder. The   
   boss is dead. Joe is dead. Aleister Crowley is dead. Who was right and who   
   was wrong?   
      
   >www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXwc5Ti3py8   
      
   That's the version I heard first, yeah.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)