I think you misunderstand the idea of supernatural and empirical.
As supernatural phenomena is in fact empirical phenomena:
wierd presence, visions ors sounds.
Even the experience from dreams is in fact empirical.
And these kind of magical or occult practitioners,
which were discussed here, always appeal to the empirical.

Stuff which opposes the empirical is purely ideal like logic, math, philosophy or theology.
And by sticking to one of these, it is probable to avoid magical thinking in any disguise.

Regarding your question about the space gnome.
i hate an idea of turning in the gnome to the FSB.
But I can't be sure that I could properly to interact with the gnome.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

In a sense, anything that can be talked about or imagines is empirical, as it is part of your experience-perception. Something that is not talked or not imagined is then truly transcendental.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Crowley had a witty quote about the absurdity of supernatural/natural causes. He even states 4 different ways to interpret magickal experiences throughout his works (something about what angels or demons could be), kind of pointing to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter how you describe things once you, most importantly, experience them.
Misha also frequently quotes RAW about some propositions being valid, wrong, meaningless depending on contest.
Really simple stuff if you think about.
I think that where all that jazz about spiritual enlightenment being a very simple, perhaps to simple revelation come from, like kids or old dudes gardening their roses understand life much better than adults.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Crowley and RAW were top-tier players.

So, even-though they are not scientists or philosophers in an academic way, it is always interesting to read them.

I bet Crowley and RAW discussed this problem on multiple occasions, but I'm not sure exactly where.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Yes, this is an interesting philosophical problem.

Indeed, almost everything we can talk about
has some empirical representation.
For example, numbers can be represented as digital
sequences or as heaps of pebbles.

But there is still some nuance here. For example,
the ideas of numbers are not justified solely by
observations of heaps of pebbles. But the idea of orgon
is largely justified by particular observations of Reich.

The same happens with modern physics, which kind of drifted
from largely observational science to something very rational
and formula-based.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

>But I can't be sure that I could properly to interact with the gnome.

А Саймака есть прикольный рассказ на эту тему. В смысле, не про гнома, а про возможность общения с пришельцем
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Да Саймак классный.

Я читал его цикл рассказов "Город".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Да, и "Город" хороший, и Саймак хороший, и вы тоже хороший.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Мутант импортировал муравьям технологию в обход санкций
Они стали русскими и захватили мир
Только роботы смогли их победить потомушто они добрее людей

(Reply to this) (Parent)

interesting. I need to read it!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Изба-читальня "У Ебленского".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Да не гном, а дворф бля

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

дворф у тебя в штанах

(Reply to this) (Parent)

гнум

(Reply to this) (Parent)