Dr. Dean Radin Brings Real Magic to the Psi Lab |377|

I think we're off in the weeds now...

I was using the word "law" to represent the principle of an idealized consistent regularity of nature (e.g. the law of gravity) rather than a codified set of behaviors subject to the deconstruction of language / symbol / meaning / interpretation.
I know you were, but in an Idealist reality, what do you think physical laws would become?
It seems to me that some physical laws would transform into deeply ingrained habits within the consciousness that maintains them, but other laws might be far more loose. Ultimately the controlling consciousness would have control.

You mention the law of gravity - well as we all know, this doesn't seem to operate well over galactic distances. Eventually science will find a reason for this (it has already made one up) but perhaps a conscious entity decided that having galaxies rotate like solar systems was inconvenient!

David
 
I think we're off in the weeds now...

I was using the word "law" to represent the principle of an idealized consistent regularity of nature (e.g. the law of gravity) rather than a codified set of behaviors subject to the deconstruction of language / symbol / meaning / interpretation.
I think we went off the weeds the moment we started conversing, which was part of my point. I was thinking more in line with what David was saying above the whole time. My only real point, was that what we call “magic” is really just a regular part of reality. Reality being all that is. In this sense, Magic is no less real or mystical than gravity. They are both perfectly proper. I guess this is why it’s important to make and agree upon hard definitions of things when exploring complicated and abstract ideas.

You have two people trying to make separate and largely non-conflicting points, but they’re using similar words and phrases, which confuses people into thinking there are agreements and disagreements where there actually are none.
 
He talks about fake Christians, fake atheist and fake science (scientism) attacks darwinism also, break it up it to 30 minute intervals, helped me
I am not really interested in the Christian issues, when does he start to talk about scientism and Darwinism? Does he say something startlingly new, and does his delivery improve as he goes on?

David
 
I am not really interested in the Christian issues, when does he start to talk about scientism and Darwinism? Does he say something startlingly new, and does his delivery improve as he goes on?David
The guy starts off with a semblance of reasonableness and gets steadily more deranged till he's a raving loony by the end of the second video. My opinion? Overall, he's a nutcase.
 
Last edited:
Can someone who knows about ceremonial magic help me out here.....

Dean describes Theurgy as working with deceased peoples / spirits / etc. and says the PSI equivalent is medium-ship. But I thought Theurgy was specifically the practice of invoking the power/aid of God(s?)..... So, wouldn't saying your bedtime prayers be closer to Theurgy than medium-ship?

Am I wrong? If not, it's a strange error on Dean's part.
Strictly speaking the clue is in the name - so your definition is right. I don't recall what Dean said, but I have never engaged in any ceremony that sought to invoke a 'deceased' person, though some folk have used a ceremonial form to prepare to call on 'deceased' persons. Serious ceremonial magic has been used to invoke the presence of spirits of various forms.

For me I would distinguish between ceremonial magic that is not associated with what we might consider 'religious' purposes - for a 'spiritual' purpose - and that which is. This is an entirely personal association. I quit ceremonial magic because of the lack of spiritual focus in the groups I was associated with - and the lack of a clear purpose in invoking powers.

Others would think my attitude weird. They would use ceremonial for utility, and for personal gain. More about power than spiritual insight. A lot of what I was taught about 'theurgy' never sat well with me in any case. I was told, for instance, that the gods of the ancient world were human conceptions. No they are not. You call on them only for a good reason - and I have never found one.

So maybe Dean used the term to cover the spectrum of magical practices. He admits he is new to the field.
 
Right - I more or less agree.

I have browsed your blog, and I know you are not a scientist, so perhaps you don't understand how they feel! I was one many years ago, and I can tell you, they basically discard relevant non-scientific knowledge completely! Things that cannot be understood with conventional ideas, are utterly marginalised. That even goes on within mainstream science - for example, look up the late "Halton Arp", who seems to have discovered a good reason to doubt the way astronomical objects are dated via their red shifts. They tried to remove his telescope time, and even though he was highly thought of before he came up with this idea, he was shunned in his later years!

This is the real problem, isn't it. What or who do we trust? I have tried to develop my views by trying to find a rough consensus of views from a variety of sources, including the rather convincing evidence for reincarnation.

This is another mystery - do 'they' want us to understand the greater reality or not? Simply hinting at this or that, seems rather puerile for a highly evolved metaphysical being!

There is certainly a sense that past science (say pre 1950) was of better quality, and there are a lot of knowledgeable people calling foul about more recent ideas.


I wonder what sort of catastrophe you are thinking about? On the physical plane, nuclear warfare seems to be by far the greatest risk. I discount 'Global warming' for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here. I suspect some other environmental problems are also rather over-egged. I don't know what sort of catastrophe might exist on non-physical planes.

David
Last point first. We have generally made a huge screw up of the natural systems on this planet through our 'science' and its subsequent technology when it has been exploited through commerce not regulated by a decent moral code or an understanding of complex systems. The whole project of civilisation has seen 'nature' as essential inimical and while we have been low in numbers that adverse impact has been either absorbed by the natural systems, or the harm done has accumulated invisibly until breaking point. If we ask ourselves when will there be a global systemic breaking point we might begin to comprehend the damage done.

The environmental problems are not 'over-egged'. They are certainly dramatised in the mistaken notion that drama sells the truth. The reality is that it is the accumulation of the under-egged issues that are creeping up on us.

We can attend to the dramatic insanities like the danger of nuclear war, and I do not dismiss that hideous potential because of the deranged idiots who have contrived to rise to power. But let me say that in terms of our cultural ecology the fact that we have so many idiots and fools in high government is symptomatic of a profound malaise. In your country ask yourself if Trump is the infection where are the antibodies? Ditto here. Ditto UK and more. The risk of nuclear war is symptomatic of a deep sickness of culture, not a cause.

Just so you know I have two science degrees - a Masters in Applied Science and a Master of Science Honours - but in Social Ecology which came out of agriculture and is not regarded as a 'proper' science. I don't call myself a scientist in there sense you are applying the term, so I am not offended. I like John Dewey's observation about religion - essentially there is no Religion, just religions and the religious. I say there is no Science, just sciences and scientists. Before we had science we had natural philosophy. I believe materialism, or its captors (commercial and political interests) saw an advantage in removing philosophy from the frame. We tend to forget that the scientists who made the most significant contributions to our knowledge tended to be either overly religious or mystically inclined.

Radin accepts 'mind' or consciousness as the foundation to reality. Drawing that into sciences dominated by materialism is a hard job, but somebody has to do it. Radin seems to have that as a mission.

I have listened to a number of laments sponsored by materialist scientists about the lack of interest in science among the young. It is actually materialism that the young are not into, not science. Compared to when I was growing up kids have been getting mega doses of magic and mythology for decades. Radin is striding a barrier that has to be broken down. While I think essential magic will remain beyond conventional 'science' for some time I do have to say that long ago science and magic were fundamentally associated. The folk who built the Pyramids were not materialists but members of what seems to be (one of) the most religious of all cultures. Science cannot progress to deliver the service we need while it remains shackled to materialism and Radin knows this. Otherwise we have the perpetuation of morally degraded exploitation of natural systems beyond their capacity to recover.
 
Last point first. We have generally made a huge screw up of the natural systems on this planet through our 'science' and its subsequent technology when it has been exploited through commerce not regulated by a decent moral code or an understanding of complex systems. The whole project of civilisation has seen 'nature' as essential inimical and while we have been low in numbers that adverse impact has been either absorbed by the natural systems, or the harm done has accumulated invisibly until breaking point. If we ask ourselves when will there be a global systemic breaking point we might begin to comprehend the damage done.
Our biggest problem is that we don't control our numbers. We could all live in the most frugal way possible, and yet eat the planet bare. However, that is not unconnected with what you say, because the easiest way to get exponential economic growth, is to have an exponential increase in population.
The environmental problems are not 'over-egged'. They are certainly dramatised in the mistaken notion that drama sells the truth. The reality is that it is the accumulation of the under-egged issues that are creeping up on us.
Let me put it this way then, certain environmental problems are definitely over-egged because people have figured out a way to make lots of money (off the poor) by doing so. I don't want to divert this discussion into the supposed risk of global warming, though PM me and I will go into details as to why I do not take that seriously - the subject has been discussed on this forum many times before.

On the other hand, I do take the danger of plastic waste in the oceans seriously. However, I have seen suggestions that this problem has become really seriously recently because we now 'recycle' much of it, although in reality it ends up in Africa, where it is disposed of in the sea! The only real solutions here are technological, because I suspect that without plastic airtight packages, a lot more food would get wasted - which is also a big environmental problem.
We can attend to the dramatic insanities like the danger of nuclear war, and I do not dismiss that hideous potential because of the deranged idiots who have contrived to rise to power. But let me say that in terms of our cultural ecology the fact that we have so many idiots and fools in high government is symptomatic of a profound malaise. In your country ask yourself if Trump is the infection where are the antibodies? Ditto here. Ditto UK and more. The risk of nuclear war is symptomatic of a deep sickness of culture, not a cause.
Well war has been a feature of human history going way back - it is just that now we can do it frighteningly more efficiently.

I'm not sure if we will any of us see May in, the way things are going. I to not see Trump as an infection, though he may have become infected with war hysteria. Just a week ago, he was talking about pulling out of Syria - something he promised in his campaign. He was right - the US should not be in Syria at all.
Just so you know I have two science degrees - a Masters in Applied Science and a Master of Science Honours - but in Social Ecology which came out of agriculture and is not regarded as a 'proper' science. I don't call myself a scientist in there sense you are applying the term, so I am not offended.
I apologise for that comment, although since I wasn't saying complementary things about scientists, it was actually more of a complement!
I like John Dewey's observation about religion - essentially there is no Religion, just religions and the religious. I say there is no Science, just sciences and scientists. Before we had science we had natural philosophy. I believe materialism, or its captors (commercial and political interests) saw an advantage in removing philosophy from the frame. We tend to forget that the scientists who made the most significant contributions to our knowledge tended to be either overly religious or mystically inclined.
Don't forget that not everything has to happen for a cynical reason. I am sure in the early days of science, most people involved had a heady feeling that materialist explanations were all that were needed. Think of those who discovered all the hormones such as adrenaline that directly affect mood. I could forgive people back then assuming that their mode of action would be solved next. However once it became clear that they bind to sites in the body, it should have become obvious that such explanations just chase an endless chain - never arriving at an explanations of consciousness.
Radin accepts 'mind' or consciousness as the foundation to reality. Drawing that into sciences dominated by materialism is a hard job, but somebody has to do it. Radin seems to have that as a mission.
Yes - I think he sticks close to science to try to make the point that science really is complete as it currently stands.
I have listened to a number of laments sponsored by materialist scientists about the lack of interest in science among the young. It is actually materialism that the young are not into, not science. Compared to when I was growing up kids have been getting mega doses of magic and mythology for decades.
Well, I think that kids can't really explore modern technology in the way kids did 50 years ago. I had a huge pile of parts that I salvaged from scrap televisions, and I learned a lot of electronics that way (fortunately without electrocuting myself because the valves needed potentially lethal voltages to work). I also explored chemistry at home. Nowadays, what can you salvage from a broken phone - pretty much nothing, and most chemicals are unavailable I guess for health and safety reasons.

But also, materialist science no longer looks as shiny as it did.
Science cannot progress to deliver the service we need while it remains shackled to materialism and Radin knows this. Otherwise we have the perpetuation of morally degraded exploitation of natural systems beyond their capacity to recover.
I don't see science in such a utilitarian way - there are plenty of questions that are of no real use, but which help us to understand reality.

David
 
Last edited:
Strictly speaking the clue is in the name - so your definition is right. I don't recall what Dean said, but I have never engaged in any ceremony that sought to invoke a 'deceased' person, though some folk have used a ceremonial form to prepare to call on 'deceased' persons. Serious ceremonial magic has been used to invoke the presence of spirits of various forms.

For me I would distinguish between ceremonial magic that is not associated with what we might consider 'religious' purposes - for a 'spiritual' purpose - and that which is. This is an entirely personal association. I quit ceremonial magic because of the lack of spiritual focus in the groups I was associated with - and the lack of a clear purpose in invoking powers.

Others would think my attitude weird. They would use ceremonial for utility, and for personal gain. More about power than spiritual insight. A lot of what I was taught about 'theurgy' never sat well with me in any case. I was told, for instance, that the gods of the ancient world were human conceptions. No they are not. You call on them only for a good reason - and I have never found one.

So maybe Dean used the term to cover the spectrum of magical practices. He admits he is new to the field.
I have no practical experience with ceremonial magic and am extremely lightly read on the subject.... so I very much appreciate your taking the time to elucidate a personal perspective. Educational, thanks.
 
I have downloaded Radin's book. From other interviews I have heard he seems very open to mind/consciousness as the foundation of the real. There is a suggestion too, that scientists are more open to that notion than the yapping materialists would have us believe. I'd like the time to read the book and come back to a discussion on it. Can we do that?
 
I have downloaded Radin's book. From other interviews I have heard he seems very open to mind/consciousness as the foundation of the real. There is a suggestion too, that scientists are more open to that notion than the yapping materialists would have us believe. I'd like the time to read the book and come back to a discussion on it. Can we do that?
Before I download it, I'd like to know what it contains. If he just analyses his existing experiments from a magic perspective, I'm not interested, but if he has done some new work involving magic practitioners, I am very interested!

David
 
Before I download it, I'd like to know what it contains. If he just analyses his existing experiments from a magic perspective, I'm not interested, but if he has done some new work involving magic practitioners, I am very interested!

David
Listen to his interview on Rune Soup (runesoup.com or just search it via your podcast app) with Gordon White. Gordon is a practitioner of 'Chaos Magic' and I esteem him highly. He was able to engage with Radin from a very different angle.
 
About 45 minutes in to it, he's abrasive you've been warned ;)
Are we talking Radin here? I am puzzled. I have read several of his books and I have never come across (in interview) a calmer more annoyingly even handed guy. I tried to go back to the original post but the link did not work. So maybe you are talking about somebody else?
 
Top