How to See Fairies. Ramsey Dukes
would have put me either in gaol or a mental asylum for writing this little book.
My “art” example focused on religious domination, but what about science? Surely science has not tried to suppress or dominate art in the same way?
No, not in the same way, but there has been a more subtle tendency for science to belittle art by implying that it is not necessary. The invention of photography could partly be blamed for the crisis in nineteenth and twentieth century painting that lead to the many modern movements and -isms as artists sought to rediscover their purpose.
The most extreme manifestation of this I remember in the 1950s when there were even some scientists suggesting that subjects such as art appreciation and literature could soon be dropped from the university curriculum, because they would become redundant once the parameters of artistic merit had been properly analysed and programmed into a computer. Already in the 1960s “Tin Pan Alley” in London was using computers to generate tunes for potential pop songs, and some thought that was the end for composers.
But what happened instead? A scientist and writer, C.P. Snow, published a speech in which he analysed art and science as “two cultures”, suggesting that they represented two different ways of addressing the world, ways that were better seen as running in parallel than in conflict. So science, for all its certainty and wisdom, would never replace art, because art fulfilled a totally different, yet equally real, human need. In this way the potential battle between art and science was defused, and since the 1960s scientists have felt comfortable about enjoying artistic hobbies without feeling obliged to rationalise or explain them in scientific terms.
The funny thing is that religion did not feature in the debate about two cultures. It was only really towards the end of the century—and religious expectations for the millennium—that a conflict began to emerge again, this time between scientific and religious thinking. Although it was not resolved in so many words, it is clear that most thoughtful people came to a similar conclusion: that science and religion were not really at odds, but were two different and parallel cultures serving contrasting and yet real human needs. So that now gave us three cultures: art, science and religion.
What I have been suggesting for many years is that the picture needs to be completed with a fourth culture—magic. Magic also meets real human needs, it is as natural to humanity as religion, art or science, and is best recognised as a culture in its own right. I argued that a lot of things are done by human beings that seem very silly because the denial of magic means that they can only be done in the name of science, art or religion, in whose terms they make no sense—but if they were recognised as magic, they would make perfect sense.
Imagine that some respected sociological research institute came up with a very strong correlation between people who read this book and subsequent marital breakdown. There would be a public outcry for this book to be banned as a danger to society. Even the sociologists would be split between those calling for a ban in face of such incontrovertible scientific evidence, and those insisting that it was unscientific to conclude that this book caused marital breakdown (because maybe people moving towards marital breakdown are those who become more interested in clairvoyance). Both argue that they are being scientific, but in fact those arguing for the ban are not being scientific, they are being magical.
Whereas science argues from causes—so my book must be proven to actually cause marital breakdown—magic works from correlations. So if this book and marital breakdown “go together” you could ban this book to reduce marital breakdown—that's called “sympathetic magic”. It isn't scientific but it does represent a real human need. If it did not, there would never have been the public outcry for the ban. If this difference between science and magic were recognised, the schism in the scientific community could be resolved by the simple recognition that such threats to society often demand an immediate magical solution, backed by a longer term scientific solution once the real cause had been identified.
PREJUDICES AGAINST MAGIC
You are setting out, with this book, to develop your psychic powers. The psychic powers in question—clairvoyance, tarot reading, seeing fairies, etc.—are all part of the culture I call magic. But, as I suggested earlier, we live in a society dominated by religious and scientific thinking, one in which magic doesn't exist or, if it does, is something very evil.
So you are setting out to experience something that at some level of your being you believe does not exist and cannot be experienced.
You may protest at this and insist “but I do believe in magic”, yet I suggest that you don't really, because not even the most experienced magicians really believe in magic. If you don't believe me, then go to some magical get-together and listen to magicians chatting. You'll constantly hear things like “I did this money spell and—it's incredible—the very next day I got a rise at work!” The word “incredible” means unbelievable, and it really does in this context because magicians never cease to be amazed that magic works. You wouldn't hear a scientist say “I mixed hydrogen and oxygen and lit it and—it's incredible—it went bang and turned into water” because scientists really believe in science.
That is one of the paradoxes of magic, what makes it so alluring. If something that you really believe in works, it's boring, but if something you don't really believe in works, it's amazing. Nobody really believes in magic, and so we have given it enormous potential to surprise and thrill us.
Follow this course faithfully and I'll blow your mind.
But we do begin with a problem: I am trying to help you to experience something when at some level you believe it is wrong to experience it—either because it doesn't exist, or even because it is evil. To achieve this, the first lesson will focus not so much on reason, or intuition, or feeling, but on the senses.
REASON AND SENSE
At its best, scientific culture is both reasonable and sensible. But, like any culture, when it has been in power for too long it becomes a line of least resistance for lazy people. In the case of scientific culture, it becomes an excuse to opt for reason and become less sensible, or more detached from reality. To be told that science is not sensible is hard for some who confuse reason and sense, so I'll need to give several examples.
If someone in awe of scientific culture is suffering from backache and I suggest a homeopathic remedy that worked for me, then I can expect a very sceptical response along the lines “that homeopathic nonsense can't possibly have healed you, it's nothing but water.” That's a reasonable reply, but it isn't particularly sensible not to try something that others recommend.
If I point that out, I'm likely to be reminded about double blind tests on homeopathic remedies that demonstrated no noticeable healing effect. In other words, people needing healing were given something and did not know (single blind) if it was a remedy or just a dummy pill, and the researchers giving the pill also did not know (double blind). Then it was found that those who actually did get the remedy fared no better than those who got the dummy, therefore it was decided that the remedy was no help.
This is very reasonable, but not at all sensible, because the double blind test has nothing to do with any real-life healing process. How would you feel if you went to the doctor and he said “I'll give you some tablets chosen at random so that I don't know if they are the remedy or not—because I don't want to prejudice your cure with expectations”? Wouldn't that be silly?
Healing involves explaining your illness in a secure environment to an authoritative, sympathetic person who then gives you a remedy that both of you trust—anything less would be cause for complaint. Homeopathic doctors understand this holistic need better than most, so the healing process is halfway there before anything has even been prescribed. It is very sensible, immediate and realistic—it's good magic, unlike woolly objections based on irrelevant tests carried out in some far distant laboratory.
Next, imagine that I become known as someone who always opts for “natural” remedies—herbs, Reiki, meditation or whatever, rather than prescription drugs. Then I get cancer and opt for chemotherapy. My “scientific” critic would find this very funny—”so much for all that natural nonsense, as soon as anything serious happens, he runs straight back to conventional