• Formal magick

    From Gary Gordon@RICKSBBS to All on Sat Aug 30 06:45:24 2025
    [This article appeared in a thread on categorizing magick on the
    newsgroup alt.magick. It contains some useful information on how
    people percieve and categorize various phenomenon -- Amythyst]

    The recent discussions of nlp and education bring to mind an issue
    having to do with learning which I believe is pertinent to magick.

    Formal magick is a largely literate/intellectual art, as we
    discuss it. There is a great deal of pooh-poohing of non-literate
    traditions from some quarters, and the entire focus of some people
    on magick as science comes from a western academic tradition. No
    problem with this -- but it is only one view.

    As Leo (I think) said recently (reminding me of Idries Shah...) a
    large part of his study is 'learning how to learn.'

    In my experience working as (among other aspects of my job[s]) a
    computer trainer, I have found that people learn in very different
    styles. I ask for the tolerance of the psych and ed people out
    there, since I haven't studied this formally...

    I have a taxonomy of learning styles which is not complete, nor is
    each category exclusive. But I find that people tend to be
    oriented towards one of three styles of learning:

    Think -- study first, do later, integrate somewhere in the
    process
    Feel -- conceptualize and integrate, then do and study
    Do -- play with and do things, study, and then integrate

    Most academic types are Thinks. These are people who find it easy
    to learn by 'reading the book/manual.' Many hackers are Do/Think
    types; they can study, but they often prefer to play with the
    system and experiment as a preferred path of learning about it.
    Feels are the people for whom it is most important that they
    realize the importance and meaning of a skill before they attempt
    to begin to acquire it. These people often need to feel inspired
    before they enter into a new enterprise -- at which point they are
    often immersed to the point of obsession...

    I was once commissioned as a consultant to teach the manager of a
    small non-profit organization (male) to teach him and his
    secretary (female) basic DOS literacy, and how to use Lotus 123 (a
    spreadsheet, for those who, like me, prefer not to travel in DOS
    circles...;). "Be gentle with Sarah, though," he advised me.
    "She's kind of a dummy about computers."

    When I arrived to teach these folks I noticed that I would explain
    something, demonstrate it on the machine, and John would get it
    straight off. Then Sarah would have to ask, "Could you tell me
    about this again?" So I would go thru it again, while John stood
    behind Sarah shaking his head privately at me as if to say "I told
    you so...!" I found this more than a little patronizing, since
    Sarah seemed to be picking up more detail, really, than John...

    So, the next thing I had to show, I said, "Watch this." And I
    performed a task. Then I explained what I just did. Sarah caught
    on immediately (she was more of a Do). John had to say, "Could
    you show me that again?"

    I confess, I spent the rest of the session adapting my teaching to
    Sarah's learning style (show, explain, then allow her to replicate
    what I did). It was clear that she was the one who would be doing
    most of the work on the computer anyway. I suspect that John is
    mystified to this *day* as to what might have been going on, that
    he suddenly had so much trouble, and Sarah's IQ had seemingly gone
    up so quickly.

    Sarah, on the other hand, whether she picked up on the mechanism
    or not, appreciated the attention, and when I saw her months
    later, thanked me again for making her 'feel better about the
    damnable machine.'

    The point of this is that many of us deal better in a learning
    environment where we can *see* and *do* things with others, rather
    than try to get them from books. This does not reflect on a
    person's relative intelligence, but rather on their adaptability
    to academic culture, if anything.

    I personally consider myself to be a Feel/Think, in this system,
    and it is important to me to be able to integrate systems as I
    learn them. One of the best ways for me to do this is to be able
    to find a person with whom I can relate closely to teach me. Once
    I learn something, I can teach it to just about anyone, although I
    might not be able to express it in words for an arbitrary (to me,
    impersonal) audience.

    Shamanic traditions, for example, are very Do/Feel in orientation,
    I think.

    Just a few ideas to cast into the fray...!
    --
    Shava Nerad Averett shava_averett@unc.edu
    /* all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing
    significant to do with the University of North Carolina, a
    mostly owned subsidiary of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned
    subsidiary of the DOT. */
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23