Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
seems to me that most of the interesting interpretive work is happening deep in the reader’s unconscious, almost inherently inaccessible to any kind of rationally legible testing framework, and that this is fine and good actually
1
12
also seems to me that the kind of phenomena accessible to exploration via “statistically-significant sample sizes” are the kind where you can assume away differences between people that are exactly the focus of magical or spiritual practice
1
7
NFT profile picture
perhaps! it's entirely possible to make that error, but also possible to examine those factors. my question is, if a phenomenon resists any attempt to look straight at it, does it really exist?
1
3
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
here's an analogy: suppose we were discussing ideas about how to have better sex. it's hard to test ideas like that, for a bunch of reasons, not least of which is that knowing that you're having sex as part of an experiment changes how you feel about the sex
1
6
another reason it's hard to test ideas for having good sex is that they're actually hard to transmit. stuff like "pay more attention to your partner" refers to a pretty complex set of skills and there are lots of individual obstacles to being able to make use of those skills
1
7
are occultists, spiritualists, religionists and magicians not positing the existence of forces that exist outside of ordinary causal relations? If they could be mechanically duplicated and measured they would be tautologically "natural" - not "supernatural"
3
5
Show replies
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Friendship is one of those things that keep resisting my attempts to “look straight at” and I still have nothing scientifically meaningful to say about it. If tarot is “one of those things”, I’ll keep in observing mode about it.
1