Got some Circlesquare lulling away in the headphones? evening pleasure reading on ol’ Mmothra’s blog led me to this interesting piece (via Wired). Dealing with the little known Princeton Engineering Anomolies Reasearch (PEAR) program, they’ve been studying the affects of human consciousness over mechanical equipment.
Using random event generators — computers that spew random output — they have participants focus their intent on controlling the machines’ output. Out of several million trials, they’ve detected small but “statistically significant” signs that minds may be able to interact with machines. However, researchers are careful not to claim that minds cause an effect or that they know the nature of the communication.
This is obviously interesting, but moreso because I’ve had a few discussions here and there dealing with the “occult” nature of our genders. It’s been my personal observation that, of those that have come unto me and learned anything that may be considered magical, females are more akin to subtle sensitivies, whereas males must work harder but lack the overwhelming lashback of fear that accompanies women’s foray into esoteric practices.
Here, the Wired article comments on this in a manner relative to my thoughts:?
Gender matters as well. Men tend to get results that match their intent, although the degree of the effect is often small. Women tend to get a bigger effect, but not necessarily the one they intend. For example, they might intend to direct balls in the random cascade machine to fall to the left, but they fall to the right instead.
Results are also greater if a male and female work together, but same-sex pairs produce no significant results. Pairs of the opposite sex who are romantically involved produce the best results ? often seven times greater than when the same individuals are tested alone. Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist and the lab’s manager, said the results in such cases often reflect the two gender styles. The effects are bigger, in keeping with what the female alone would tend to produce, but more on target, in keeping with what the male alone would produce.
“It’s almost as if there were two styles or two variables and they are complementary,” Dunne said. “(The masculine style) is associated with intentionality. The (feminine style) seems to be associated more with resonance.”
It’s been my experience that guys, when interested in matters of mysticism and magic, pursue it in a diligent, critical way. Developing skills, step by step, they slowly conquer their initial disbelief in the results that, over time, become commonplace ? yet occult to those inexperienced with magic. With the women, many who are aware and interested to partake in some trials (most of those I know are in their twenties), and they can easily accomplish these so-called psychic phenomenon much more quickly and with less stress than the men. However, they are afflicted by an emotional lashback, fear that muddies their experience and, more often than not, dissuades them from moving forth with their experiences. This is unfortunate because they need to deal with this fear to really embrace the potential powers that lie ahead of them. And because of this, men seem to have an upper-hand in that those with piqued curiosities move ahead and, at a slower rate, come to deal with the upsets and emotional turmoils that are thrown their way, rather than a tumultous experience all up-front as in many women’s cases.
Dunno if anyone out there has any comments or observations of their own regarding any of this?
August 10, 2005 at 7:53 pm
What do we mean by “men” and “women.” Keep in mind that the binary gender distinction seems of little use in the 21st century, even if Princeton doesn’t.
August 10, 2005 at 8:26 pm
I can’t debate whether it has to do with biological sex or if if its phenomena is rooted in social constructionism and the consequent shaping of conscience in the individuals therein.
On a more basic, personal level, I just mean men and women.
August 11, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Just because one believes that binary gender distinction is of little use in the 21st century, doesn’t make it so. And saying that it is, is counter initiatory propoganda.
August 13, 2005 at 2:17 am
although i suspect that these things might also vary greatly with different personality types, i can only vouch for myself as a female and for me what (temporarily) put me off pursuing further into mystic/occult practices was *precisely* this intense fear…
-L.
August 13, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Reactionary attitudes toward gender among people who supposedly know better never ceases to amaze me. Clearly binary gender distinctions form a fantasy-narrative not unlike democracy. This seems the type of thing which defies explanation to me. Also, I find it illustrative that I’ve heard D Limey’s comment about a hundred times- as if the sheer assertion of transgendered persons formed the bulk of evidence against binary gender distinctions.
If an old acid head like GPO can get this why young people can’t seems beyond me.
August 13, 2005 at 4:21 pm
You can play poetics if you so desire. But any argument dismissing gender in the manifest realm (physiologically, genetically, spiritually, or mentally) would be shere nonsense.
I am aware of transgenderism and the whole aboriginal notion of Two-Spirits.
GPO may do what he pleases. Marilyn Manson pursued the same message with Mechanical Animals. It is probably possible to find an absolute balance between the forces of intentionality and resonance, as the Wired article puts it. From my readings, that is my perfect understanding of a magus.
But for most, gender is an accepted trait of life.
August 24, 2005 at 10:08 am
For most the 6 o’clock news represents “reality”