I was doing some research into some novels written by Lyndon M. Hardy, physicist and sci/fi writer, last week and came across a blog by Kurt Cagle posted April 23, 2007. The comparisons he made struck a chord with me. Here is the addy:
www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog...ians.html
What do you folks think?
www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog...ians.html
What do you folks think?
posted by:
|
Portland
|
-
Re: Definition by Analogy?
Sun, August 5, 2007 - 10:32 AMIt sounds as though he's been influenced by Phil Farber...when he talks about meta-magicians.
Is the author stating that he thinks chaos magicians just produce the code,and don't think in terms of patterns?...I'm not sure he really knows what he's talking about - he may just be an NLP/computer coder and not a chaos magician...so he doesn't quite have the experience of a chaos magician. He doesn't seem to realize chaos magic is all about stepping outside the box and examining the patterns etc.,much like he says meta-magicians do, but he seems to be saying that he thinks only meta-magicians do that. (Correct me if I'm wrong- I scan-read the article) Not sure if drawing a distinction between the two is very helpful, but it is an interesting idea. -
-
Re: Definition by Analogy?
Mon, August 6, 2007 - 2:28 PMI posted this because I found the parallels between how a mind trained in physics and one that explored magick viewed things intriguing. So far as i know Kurt does not practice magick in the accepted sense of the word. He has drawn his "basics of magick" from a novel written by Lyndon M. Hardy, a physicist who that last time I checked was working on the cutting edge of AI, titled "Master of the Five Magics" back in 1980. His reference to "chaos storms" is probably drawn from Chaos Theory not CMT. Grins...there is a good chance that Kurt's concept of magick is more in line with Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (circa 1961)
So the question might be does a "chaos magician" constitute a "meta-magician"?
-
