The Magus’s Discussions

The social nature that is deep-seated in a person gives rise to a desire for communication, discussion, and debate.

Despite the rejection of socialization, many who have entered the Way of Magic depend more on this need than one might expect. It turns out that nothing makes a person as vulnerable and prone to losing Power as social interactions. And it is precisely this vulnerability that is often exploited by Parasites of mind to drain Power.

Discussion, dispute, polemic — these methods of seeking truth have been known since ancient times. They arose in Ancient Greece, where rhetoric underpinned debates on philosophical subjects. The Greeks observed that knowledge acquired through the clash of opposing viewpoints is more robust. Moreover, it effectively shapes human behavior, creating conditions for a conscious unity of thought and action. All “discussions” carried out in reality can be divided into two large groups: those in which the participants start from different positions and those in which their positions are initially similar. In the first case, the discussion either takes the form of a duel or serves to clarify one’s own position.

The ancient Norse skalds attributed to verbal duels — “senam” (verbal holmgangs) — no less significance than to battles with swords. Similar duels among the Slavs were called svary — from Old Russian svarŭ “quarrel”, svariti “to argue”. A number of songs and sagas are devoted to descriptions of such duels; both the “Lay of Harbard” and the “Saga of Björn” are essentially accounts of such verbal contests.

Moreover, according to Northern myth, such bickering lies at the foundation of the Cosmos — Eagle and Serpent, the top and bottom of Yggdrasil, are in constant verbal opposition.

A significant portion of the “discussions” conducted among contemporary Magi and their followers can safely be classified as bickering, because they pursue no aim other than the demonstration of one’s intellectual, authoritative — and thus magical — superiority and the attraction of witnesses to the “bickering” to one’s side.

The aim of bickering is not inquiry, not persuasion, but victory. And polemicists pursue it for various motives. Some believe they are defending a just cause, protecting the public interest. They are convinced of their correctness and stick to their principles. Others need victory for self-assertion and care deeply about winning the dispute, high regard from others, recognition of their intellectual abilities, and rhetorical gifts. Others simply love to win and want a more effective victory. They do not scruple over the means and devices used to achieve victory.

Argument for argument’s sake is also quite common. It is a kind of “art for art’s sake”. For such disputants, they are indifferent to the topic, with whom, or why. What matters is to display eloquence. The presence of listeners (readers), even when they do not express their stance on the argument, influences the disputants. Victory in front of listeners brings greater satisfaction, inflates pride, and defeat becomes more humiliating. Therefore disputants, when in the presence of an audience, inevitably take the listeners and their reactions into account, carefully select their arguments, are more stubborn in their opinions, and sometimes lose their temper.

It is clear that such “discussions” are utterly superfluous in the life of a Magus who is advancing to Power on their own path, not dependent on others’ approval or disapproval, nor on being acknowledged as “the strongest” or “the smartest.” Both manifestations, on the contrary, are consequences of an ineffective personal strategy, lead to the dissipation of Power and, to a large extent, are driven by the parasite of mind. However, in the heat of polemical zeal, many do not know how to stop in time and continue the bickering, dissipating their Power.

At the same time, it is human nature when interacting with others to test one’s own views. Therefore a verbal duel becomes constructive only if it is aimed at clarifying one’s own position in its clash with the positions of others. Indeed, there is no better way to understand one’s thoughts than attempting to explain them to another. In this context, polemic is directed neither at convincing the interlocutor nor at recruiting supporters, but only helps to clarify the boundaries of one’s views. However, such a discussion, alas, carries a great risk of turning into bickering and losing its constructive purpose.

A second variety of discussions is those in which people who hold the same positions discuss matters to develop a joint strategy of action. Such dialogue is intended to facilitate careful consideration, reflection, and development of the ideas expressed. In this case, the essence of the conversation comes down to proposing different courses of action, discussing them, considering their advantages and disadvantages, and choosing the most appropriate. Nevertheless, under pressure from the parasite of mind, even such seemingly harmless discussions often degenerate into polemics and quarrels.

Thus, for the Magus, discussion is as much a battlefield as other interactions — and it is very important that this battle be waged against internal enemies, and not be diverted to seeking and fighting external enemies.