Towards a Philosophy of Magick, Pt. 6: Paradigmatic Values
In which I present values by which we may judge paradigms. Written 10-25-23.
In the section of this work introducing the notion of paradigms, I presented the issue of the incommensurability of significantly differing paradigms of belief. This incommensurability comes from a basic problem of logic. Let us consider a simple illustration from the field of magick.
Person A subscribes to the psychological paradigm of magick. They believe that magick is fundamentally an operational theory of psychodynamic psychology. This paradigm includes the beliefs that deities represent archetypes within a “collective unconscious” (popularized by the works of Carl Jung) and that spirits are aspects of the human mind. For Person A, doing magick consists of using external symbolic behavior to cause changes in the internal consciousness with the goal of changing their own behaviors and perceptions in order to cause effective changes in their life.
Person B subscribes to the realist paradigm of magick. They believe that magick is an operational theory of causing change directly in reality. This paradigm includes the belief that deities and spirits are actual independent entities capable of causing change in the world. For person B, doing magick consists of using certain techniques to operationalize magickal laws (contagion, sympathy, and their corollaries and consequents) and interact with certain forces to cause effective changes in their life.
Now let us say that A and B hold a debate over the question of whether the angel Cassiel is immortal.
A argues that Cassiel can’t be immortal because they exist as a shared thought in human minds, and humans are mortal, which means that when the last human who knows about Cassiel dies, so does Cassiel.
B argues that Cassiel is a spirit, specifically an angel, a messenger and agent of the Divine, a sort of reification and custodian of a specific piece of ontological infrastructure, and that as such, while Cassiel was created at some specific point in time with that ontological infrastructure and will cease to exist at the end of the universe when that infrastructure ceases to be, B insists that Cassiel cannot die in the sense that a physical biological being dies, and is thus immortal.
How can we, the judges of this debate, decide the issue fairly? Kuhn argues (and I agree with him) that we can’t. The definitions that A and B are using of the term “Cassiel” differ so significantly that the premises A and B are using may as well be from different universes (and in fact they are from two different and inconsistent “universes of discourse”). This means that, since there is no real agreement on basic principles, we can’t make a principled decision between the two. This problem is exactly what makes the differences between A and B paradigmatic, rather than traditional. Indeed, as mentioned in the section of this work on paradigms, two people from the same magickal or mystical tradition may hold exactly these two differing paradigms of belief but still participate in the exact same paradigm of practice.
Presented with this problem, it seems that we need a metasystem for discussing and deciding between paradigms of both belief and practice, at least on a personal level. Since we can’t reasonably choose between paradigms from within those paradigms, we have to take one step outside of them and make our decision from there. Thus here I present a list of properties I believe we should desire for a paradigm of belief and any resultant theories within a given paradigm, with explanations of each.
Empirical Adequacy: Empirical adequacy means that the paradigm fits the associated observations and does not contradict them in an unacceptable way (see below entry on “Internal Consistency or Paraconsistency”). This is the first and most important feature that any paradigm must have for it to be useful and productive. Note that my use of the term “empirical” is essentially phenomenological, and not limited to physical sense-data.
Internal Consistency or Paraconsistency: A successful paradigm must not suffer from the wrong kind of inconsistency. Remember from the section of this work on logic that paraconsistency is a feature of logical paradoxes and some mystical insights, and each use of paraconsistency within a paraconsistent paradigm or theory must be especially justified to avoid destructive contradictions that lead to logical “explosion” (all possible propositions becoming arbitrarily true). This means that almost all propositions in a given paradigm or theory must be logically consistent, and that those that are paraconsistent must be specially justified. Any inconsistencies outside these very special conditions should be considered disqualifiers for a given paradigm or theory.
Precision: This is the property of specificity in claims and analyses. While sometimes there is a necessary vagueness in some magickal processes (divination, for example), the analyses and predictions made by a successful paradigm or theory must be as precise as possible. It is not enough to simply wave away a given element of the paradigm or theory…each element must be defined as clearly and distinctly as possible and its relationship to the other elements of the paradigm or theory shown clearly.
Simplicity: A good paradigm or theory should be free of unnecessary elements that do no explanatory, predictive, or technical work. This is a corollary of the Principle of Parsimony, otherwise known as “Occam’s Razor”: “Do not multiply entities needlessly”. Thus when presented with two otherwise equal paradigms or theories, we should prefer the one with fewer elements.
Explanatory Power: Given two otherwise equal paradigms or theories, the one that most successfully explains the observed phenomena is preferable.
Completeness: While a truly “complete” theory of anything is impossible due to the same incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel mentioned in the section of this work introducing paradigms, completeness, by which I mean the degree to which a given paradigm or theory grounds and explains all of the phenomena and applications in question, seems a very desirable property. Thus when presented with two otherwise equally preferable paradigms or theories, the one which more completely grounds and explains more phenomena and applications within the paradigm or theory is the one we should choose.
Robustness: Robustness is a measurement of how well a given paradigm or theory holds up when challenged. Obviously a more robust theory is preferential, as we don’t want to be needlessly revising our paradigms and theories all the time.
Fruitfulness: Fruitfulness is a measure of how well a given paradigm produces new theories and how well a given theory produces new applications. In magickal terms, it is a question of how much a given paradigm or theory allows people to do more and better magick.
Predictive Success: Predictive success is a measure of how well a given paradigm or theory predicts contingent events within the observed phenomena. In magickal terms, we would talk in terms of our analyses of the magickal forces at work in a given situation and predictions made using those analyses, such as the predictions made in a divination or the predicted results of an act of practical magick. Clearly a paradigm or theory with a higher rate of predictive successes is preferable.
Technical Success: Technical success is a measure of how well a given paradigm or theory allows us to cause desired changes in the world. In the context of magick, this means how often our magick is successful. A paradigm or theory which produces more technical successes seems obviously preferable to one that produces less.
This list presents the qualities I will use to consider and compare paradigms and theories of belief and practice in my work moving forward. In the next section we will consider the issue of belief change and the logical methods we will use to discuss it.