Definition of Magic for debate

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. What do you mean by "physically possible?"

For the purposes of what I was trying to express, just "possible" would work... though not "possible" in the sense of "this hasn't been ruled out", but "possible" in the sense of "we've confirmed that this can happen."

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nature simply created something that then separated. I think of it like a mother and child. If the mind were just another aspect of deterministic nature, it could not question or manipulate nature, could not have metacognition. The definition acknowledges this because free real requires the mind be separate from nature, able to go against it. I'm not sure what you mean by "a mind these exists outside RFD world."

You're not making any sense. You've yet to indicate just how 'free will' is separated from nature. I can understand how a child separates from its mother, in that it no longer is dependent upon the mother's biological functions and eventually is no longer dependent upon her physical care. Explain how free will means that the mind must be separate from nature? In fact, explain to me how the mind even CAN exist outside of nature. That's what I mean when I ask you to cite me an example of a mind that does exist outside of or separate from the natural world.

 

[Willamena]

No, it's not so self-fulfilling as that. When I cast four runes into my cash bag for work, to try and draw good fortune for wealth, I am doing magic whether it works or not. Magic is often a gamble, in this manner; a petition of luck, not a sure result.

What magic is done if it doesn't work? The magic of failure?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The action is the magic, not the result.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But calling it the placebo effect takes away the magic. It makes the "spell" no more magical than the sugar pill.

(Devil's Advocate)

If that is true, "calling the placebo effect takes away the magic", then it must be a placebo; because, if calling magic a placebo magically changes the definition of magic, then, you kinda contradicted yourself. You made magic a placebo affect by suggesting calling it anything different will change the definition of the word and it would cease to be magic.

If magic is, well, magic then regardless of what you call it, it shouldn't change the definition nor the existence of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(Devil's Advocate)

If that is true, "calling the placebo effect takes away the magic", then it must be a placebo; because, if calling magic a placebo magically changes the definition of magic, then, you kinda contradicted yourself.

Think of it as "purported magic" and hopefully you'll get where I'm coming from better.

You made magic a placebo affect by suggesting calling it anything different will change the definition of the word and it would cease to be magic.

If magic is, well, magic then regardless of what you call it, it shouldn't change the definition nor the existence of it.

No; you're begging the question. Here's the scenario I had in mind:

Something happens. We want to figure out what caused it. Our list of possible causes includes "magic". After looking at it a bit, we decide that it was caused by the placebo effect. Because we have decided that it was caused by the placebo effect, we conclude that it wasn't caused by magic after all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Think of it as "purported magic" and hopefully you'll get where I'm coming from better.


No; you're begging the question. Here's the scenario I had in mind:

Something happens. We want to figure out what caused it. Our list of possible causes includes "magic". After looking at it a bit, we decide that it was caused by the placebo effect. Because we have decided that it was caused by the placebo effect, we conclude that it wasn't caused by magic after all.

Do you believe magic exist without it being a placebo?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe magic exist without it being a placebo?

I think that if something that someone calls "magic" is actually the placebo effect, then it's not really magic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think that if something that someone calls "magic" is actually the placebo effect, then it's not really magic.

Can magic exist without it being called a placebo effect?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can magic exist without it being called a placebo effect?

Things that are claimed to be magic could be actually caused by any number of physical causes, not just the placebo effect.

Whether real magic actually exists is an open question, but since things that are claimed to be magic end up being considered not magic once they're understood, I don't see a situation where belief in magic could ever be justified.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Things that are claimed to be magic could be actually caused by any number of physical causes, not just the placebo effect.

Whether real magic actually exists is an open question, but since things that are claimed to be magic end up being considered not magic once they're understood, I don't see a situation where belief in magic could ever be justified.

I don't know if you defined it for others, but how do you define magic?

 

[Willamena]

The action is the magic, not the result.

Is there a difference between a magical casting and a mundane casting? If so, then it's not the act.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Is there a difference between a magical casting and a mundane casting? If so, then it's not the act.

Given what is being attempted, there can be no such thing as a "mundane casting." A better example for that would be blowing a horn to invoke protection during travel; a "mundane blowing" would be using the horn for battle or announcement. But blowing it to invoke favor of Gods - whether that favor is given or not - is a magical action based on the intent.

Saying that magic is only magic when it works is, essentially, setting it up to win. Yet nothing works like that--not even magic.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

"Magic is the attempt to either (1) increase and utilize one's free will, or (2) submit ones free will to something viewed as greater."

1. Why call it magic? Free will is more or less unnatural in itself. Obviously it arose from nature, but it allows us to question nature, manipulate it, counter it and use it as we wish. The definition acknowledges that the mind is something more than and separate from the world around it, and can choose how to act.

2. Why two definition? As simple as white v. black magic. The white magician seeks to submit to something higher, consciously or not, such as state, church, god, or even something like materialism or determinism. The black magician seeks to isolate itself from these influences rather than submit to them, to become a separate force.

3. But, do we have free will? The answer seems to be a rather obvious yes. From emotional regulation to modern science, from cognitive therapy to metacognition, it literally all suggests some degree of free will. Perhaps free will is not inherent, no, but the definition accounts for that.

Magic is any change in accordance with ones will. The tricky part is separating 'ones will' from the rest of the causal universe, which involves a leap of faith rational and informed minds may struggle with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if you defined it for others, but how do you define magic?

I don't, really.

I feel the same way about "magic" as I do about "the supernatural": both terms assume that things are divided into a dichotomy that I don't think is valid: magical vs. non-magical, or supernatural vs. natural. In both cases, employing the dichotomy assumes limits on "the natural" or "the non-magical" that not only aren't justified now, but could never be justified, because they rely on irrational assumptions about things beyond our knowledge.

Instead, I divide things differently: "that which exist" vs. "that which doesn't exist." Things we call "magic" are just a special category of things that we aren't sure exist or not.

 

[Willamena]

Given what is being attempted, there can be no such thing as a "mundane casting." A better example for that would be blowing a horn to invoke protection during travel; a "mundane blowing" would be using the horn for battle or announcement. But blowing it to invoke favor of Gods - whether that favor is given or not - is a magical action based on the intent.

Saying that magic is only magic when it works is, essentially, setting it up to win. Yet nothing works like that--not even magic.

It doesn't set it up to win so much as sets up the definition to define it, and not its lack.

 

[YmirGF]

The action is the magic, not the result.

If it is just a craps shoot, how is it magic?

 

[EtuMalku]

I am in agreement with Dr. Aquino and the Temple of Set's definition of MAGIC.

BLACK MAGIC
Followers of the Left-Hand Path practice what, in a specific and technical sense, we term Black Magic. Black Magic focuses on self-determined goals. Its formula is "my will be done", as opposed to the White Magic of the Right-Hand Path, whose formula is "thy will be done".

Black Magic is shunned and feared because to do Black Magic is to take full responsibility for one's actions, evolution, and effectiveness.

Since magic enables you to influence or change events in ways neither understood nor anticipated by society, you must develop a sound and sophisticated appreciation for the ethics governing your own motives, decisions, and actions before you put it to use. To use magic for impulsive, trivial, or egoistic desires is not Setian. It must become second-nature to you to carefully pre-evaluate the consequences of what you wish to do, then choose the course of wisdom, justice, and creative improvement.

Magic may either be operative—to cure your mother's illness, get a better job, strengthen your memory, etc.—or illustrative/initiatory. Illustrative/initiatory magical workings seek to enable and enact the lifetime process of Initiation. They are are comparable to "rites of passage" of many primitive cultures and conventional religions, but are distinguished from these in that they represent individually-crafted rather than socially-prescribed change. Initiatory workings thus represent the actualization of self-deification, while social "rites of passage" integrate an individual into society. A "rite of passage" communicating passage into adulthood establishes that the individual involved is now possessed of certain dignity and responsibilities. An initiatory working awakens one to certain individual powers [and responsibilities], which may or may not be used in a social context. Initiation does not occur within a ritual chamber, but it is illustrated there.

Black Magic is the means by which Initiates of the Left-Hand Path experience being gods, rather than praying to imaginary images of gods.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't, really.

I feel the same way about "magic" as I do about "the supernatural": both terms assume that things are divided into a dichotomy that I don't think is valid: magical vs. non-magical, or supernatural vs. natural. In both cases, employing the dichotomy assumes limits on "the natural" or "the non-magical" that not only aren't justified now, but could never be justified, because they rely on irrational assumptions about things beyond our knowledge.

Instead, I divide things differently: "that which exist" vs. "that which doesn't exist." Things we call "magic" are just a special category of things that we aren't sure exist or not.

I'd probably say "thing's that exist" and leave it at that. There are only things that do exist. Since the world doesn't revolve around us, why would things that exist be limited to what we can detect and test?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd probably say "thing's that exist" and leave it at that. There are only things that do exist. Since the world doesn't revolve around us, why would things that exist be limited to what we can detect and test?

It isn't. I'm not sure why you would think I was suggesting otherwise.

The question of how *we* figure out whether a thing exists, though, is very much a matter of what we can detect and test.