Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[Iti oj]

@Taylor Seraphim claimed that magicians who do not study or have knowledge reach the same end as those of us who do. I tagged you and some of our friends here for comparison with the "majority" of the online occult community to show that is simply untrue.

A hhh. Oh hmmm this could be interesting. I have mixed feelings on this. I think it also depends on what we mean my knowledge and study . ..

Out of curiosity what do you consider my knowledge level?

 

[Quintessence]

A hhh. Oh hmmm this could be interesting. I have mixed feelings on this. I think it also depends on what we mean my knowledge and study

I'm hoping it includes actually walking the walk. Armchair study has its place, but these things are fundamentally experiential. When one practices, one finds the techniques that work effectively for oneself.

 

[Iti oj]

I'm hoping it includes actually walking the walk. Armchair study has its place, but these things are fundamentally experiential. When one practices, one finds the techniques that work effectively for oneself.

Yeah I agree. Which is part of the reason why I have mixed feelings one could invent a path from scratch. Also though I don't consider occult teachings as truth so it's not needed or knowledge per say. The abstract mechanism and philosophies though hold more weight.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah I agree. Which is part of the reason why I have mixed feelings one could invent a path from scratch.

It's possible to do... sort of. You can stumble upon various practices in total ignorance of them being a thing, and you can develop that practice quite a lot. But creating a cohesive vision won't happen without interaction with the outside world. In many respect, when I discovered Neopaganism existed, that was the framework that helped organize a lot of my childhood experiences in a more meaningful way... to create that cohesive path/religion/worldview. I don't think it would have happened otherwise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.
That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

What harm does it do?
A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

I read this a couple of times. I agree; and, I can kinda see why one would see magic as a placebo affect. Even some Pagans (maybe natualistic Pagans) see magic as a psychological tool and that gives an impression of the placebo-look.

I do want to understand something. How do you define magic?

I know I dont see magic as a placebo affect either. There isn't a destinction between magic and non-magic. Rituals and spellcraft to say heal someone is just the same as giving someone an advil. I wouldnt consider it a placebo because the person wanting to be healed may know that the nature of that particular ritual doesnt involve herbs or medicine.

Basically, it cant be a placebon given both are fully aware. Maybe one can mirror it to meditation. Controling breathing sooths a person just as other methods within ritual that can help a lot for the patient psychologically and thus physically in his improvement in health.

I guess the best way I personally would define magic from a nature perspective is holistic rituals rather than artificial or physical means of helping, protecting, healing, and so forth.

If we change the langauge and tell outsiders its holistic practices maybe they will see it less as glamoar and tv. magic and more of alternative medicine. A step up even though the word holistic may not be a prefered word for many. I wouldnt know another way to change the word magic.

I know its not placebo but people think it so because they may relate itto alternative medicine and psychology. Which is not a bad assumption because of lack of experience and understanding of how each person who does magic define it for themselves.

My point is they use their definition and not the definitions from the actual practitioners. Thats the first problem right there.

Definitions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I dont know it that correctly addressed the OPs points. Hope so.

 

[Erebus]

I read this a couple of times. I agree; and, I can kinda see why one would see magic as a placebo affect. Even some Pagans (maybe natualistic Pagans) see magic as a psychological tool and that gives an impression of the placebo-look.

I do want to understand something. How do you define magic?

I know I dont see magic as a placebo affect either. There isn't a destinction between magic and non-magic. Rituals and spellcraft to say heal someone is just the same as giving someone an advil. I wouldnt consider it a placebo because the person wanting to be healed may know that the nature of that particular ritual doesnt involve herbs or medicine.

Basically, it cant be a placebon given both are fully aware. Maybe one can mirror it to meditation. Controling breathing sooths a person just as other methods within ritual that can help a lot for the patient psychologically and thus physically in his improvement in health.

I guess the best way I personally would define magic from a nature perspective is holistic rituals rather than artificial or physical means of helping, protecting, healing, and so forth.

If we change the langauge and tell outsiders its holistic practices maybe they will see it less as glamoar and tv. magic and more of alternative medicine. A step up even though the word holistic may not be a prefered word for many. I wouldnt know another way to change the word magic.

I know its not placebo but people think it so because they may relate itto alternative medicine and psychology. Which is not a bad assumption because of lack of experience and understanding of how each person who does magic define it for themselves.

My point is they use their definition and not the definitions from the actual practitioners. Thats the first problem right there.

Definitions.

This might be a bit of a frustrating answer, but nowadays I tend not to define magic at all. I've worked with a few different definitions in the past and found that none of them quite clicked for me. I view magic as being very similar to art. You can certainly define it if you wish, some people do. Personally though, I know art when I see it and I know magic when I see it. That's enough for me.

It wouldn't be true to use the placebo effect to explain all magic. Different spells will work in slightly different ways depending on the intent. A curse for example isn't a placebo, but it may work similarly (I've heard the term nocebo used on occasion, but I'm not sure how accepted that term is). However, I do believe that 90% of magic works by altering perception in some way. That remaining 10% I leave open to the possibility of something else*. I'm generally agnostic about a lot of things people label as "supernatural" and I have the same attitude here.

That said, the placebo variant of magic can work even if you consider it placebo. It just takes an extra step. During a ritual it's important (in my opinion) to cast aside skepticism and fully immerse yourself in the magic. During the ritual, as far as you're concerned, magic is supernatural, gods take whatever form and sentience you ascribe to them, spirits of all kinds can be contacted and make contact.

In other words, you convince yourself that what you're doing is anything but placebo.

These things are a little tricky to put into words. That's one reason why people in this thread have already emphasized the importance of hands-on experience. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from here.

As a side note, regarding how people define magic: some people prefer to define magic in such a way that it could only exist within a work of fiction. That's up to them I suppose, but I don't see why such a restrictive viewpoint is needed.


*Just to make matters even more confusing, if we were to argue that magic is 100% psychological, I'd still need to leave that 10% for something else. Without that sliver of doubt, rituals would be much harder, if not impossible, to get a result from.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This might be a bit of a frustrating answer, but nowadays I tend not to define magic at all. I've worked with a few different definitions in the past and found that none of them quite clicked for me. I view magic as being very similar to art. You can certainly define it if you wish, some people do. Personally though, I know art when I see it and I know magic when I see it. That's enough for me.

It wouldn't be true to use the placebo effect to explain all magic. Different spells will work in slightly different ways depending on the intent. A curse for example isn't a placebo, but it may work similarly (I've heard the term nocebo used on occasion, but I'm not sure how accepted that term is). However, I do believe that 90% of magic works by altering perception in some way. That remaining 10% I leave open to the possibility of something else*. I'm generally agnostic about a lot of things people label as "supernatural" and I have the same attitude here.

That said, the placebo variant of magic can work even if you consider it placebo. It just takes an extra step. During a ritual it's important (in my opinion) to cast aside skepticism and fully immerse yourself in the magic. During the ritual, as far as you're concerned, magic is supernatural, gods take whatever form and sentience you ascribe to them, spirits of all kinds can be contacted and make contact.

In other words, you convince yourself that what you're doing is anything but placebo.

These things are a little tricky to put into words. That's one reason why people in this thread have already emphasized the importance of hands-on experience. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from here.

As a side note, regarding how people define magic: some people prefer to define magic in such a way that it could only exist within a work of fiction. That's up to them I suppose, but I don't see why such a restrictive viewpoint is needed.


*Just to make matters even more confusing, if we were to argue that magic is 100% psychological, I'd still need to leave that 10% for something else. Without that sliver of doubt, rituals would be much harder, if not impossible, to get a result from.

I understand where you coming from. I cant say I agree or disagree because I dont see the supernatual as a part from the natual. Everything is natual; just some things we cant explain. Mystery rather than supernatual.

As far as magic, I wouldnt even use the term because it doesnt have really any meaning for me. Im like an outsider when I hear it..that and the word spells. In a sense, I can see where outsiders come from but since I have experienced magic for myself and it worked, I wouldnt consider it placebo just something that people cant accept they wont understand without them placing a label on it.

It gets fustrating, I know. If everyone believed in magic, definitions probably wouldnt even need to be a problem. It would just be.

 

[Quintessence]

Personally, I find "placebo" to be a muggle word for what the rest of us would simply regard as a type of magic.

It's worth observing that in our culture, once we come up with a scientific explanation for something, we stop calling it magic. That does not have to be the case, and IMHO, should not be the case. It doesn't stop becoming magic just because the sciences have come up with an explanation for it. Nor is the scientific explanation the be-all and end-all of truth; the sciences are descriptive, not prescriptive (in spite of many seeming to think otherwise).

 

[Erebus]

I understand where you coming from. I cant say I agree or disagree because I dont see the supernatual as a part from the natual. Everything is natual; just some things we cant explain. Mystery rather than supernatual.

As far as magic, I wouldnt even use the term because it doesnt have really any meaning for me. Im like an outsider when I hear it..that and the word spells. In a sense, I can see where outsiders come from but since I have experienced magic for myself and it worked, I wouldnt consider it placebo just something that people cant accept they wont understand without them placing a label on it.

It gets fustrating, I know. If everyone believed in magic, definitions probably wouldnt even need to be a problem. It would just be.

Supernatural is one of those words I really dislike. When you think it through, it's basically a nonsense word. It's probably only really useful at all as a very loose category, a colloquialism to cover ghosts, telekinesis and so on.

That's fair enough, I'd say it's better to find no use for the word magic than to attempt to restrict how other people view it.

People are funny creatures. I'm not sure they can let anything just be

Personally, I find "placebo" to be a muggle word for what the rest of us would simply regard as a type of magic.

It's worth observing that in our culture, once we come up with a scientific explanation for something, we stop calling it magic. That does not have to be the case, and IMHO, should not be the case. It doesn't stop becoming magic just because the sciences have come up with an explanation for it. Nor is the scientific explanation the be-all and end-all of truth; the sciences are descriptive, not prescriptive (in spite of many seeming to think otherwise).

Muggle word I like that. Yes, a placebo is a little sugar pill given by a doctor. Honestly, writing this thread has been difficult. It's really hard to explain these things in a way that other people can understand without also ... well, losing some of the magic I guess.

Yeah, like I mentioned in the OP, that's a quirk that really confuses me. A none spellcraft based example would be oarfish. They're basically enormous, serpentine fish found in the oceans pretty much across the world. They're also thought to have been mistaken for sea serpents by old sailors.

Mistaken...

The giant, serpentine creatures living in the ocean were mistaken for giant, serpentine creatures living in the ocean.

 

[Riverwolf]

IF you refuse to have standardization in a language that language cannot be used to communicate.

Which does seem to make sense, in theory.

And yet, without any form of central authority or true standardization, English speakers can usually understand each other just fine, even across hundreds of dialects.

When one "dialect" of English proved impossible for most other English speakers to understand, it was reclaimed as a separate language: Scots. AAVE seems to be on a similar trajectory.

...I saw in another thread that you wished the world just followed a spoke. As long as our native languages don't get replaced, and we're just raised bilingual: in our native language and said world conlang, I wholly agree.

 

[Riverwolf]

Muggle word I like that. Yes, a placebo is a little sugar pill given by a doctor. Honestly, writing this thread has been difficult. It's really hard to explain these things in a way that other people can understand without also ... well, losing some of the magic I guess.

Yeah, like I mentioned in the OP, that's a quirk that really confuses me. A none spellcraft based example would be oarfish. They're basically enormous, serpentine fish found in the oceans pretty much across the world. They're also thought to have been mistaken for sea serpents by old sailors.

Mistaken...

The giant, serpentine creatures living in the ocean were mistaken for giant, serpentine creatures living in the ocean.

The only "mistake" was in size (because our brains do that), and in some of the behaviors, which... well, the media still exaggerates everything. It's entirely possible that many sailors who actually saw these sea serpents (or the kraken, for that matter) were just as frustrated with the exaggerations in their stories, as many modern scientists are of the media doing the same thing.

 

[outhouse]

If you're talking about like stage magic, then sure. Nobody else here is talking about stage magic.

There is no such thing as magic that is not a trick played on the ignorance of those in the audience.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure what you mean by this but every one has their own rituals, magic or not.

Exactly !!

Lets define the difference between "magic" and anything else like ritual.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Definitely not. Compare people like me, @Quintessence , @Riverwolf , @Adramelek , @crossfire , @Iti oj , etc to, say, 99% of posters on the occult subreddit.

Yeah don't see a difference in "powers" or reasoning skills.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I'm not sure what you mean by this but every one has their own rituals, magic or not.

People do this in other ways than ritual.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Why say "Magic" instead of "placebo"? The answer is quite simple. Magic is bringing about real change in accordance with the Will, not bringing about false perceptions. Though I will say that the placebo effect is an excellent example of lesser magic.

Do you mind if I test your ability to bring about "real change"?

PS: Placebo effect's are real change.

 

[Erebus]

The only "mistake" was in size (because our brains do that), and in some of the behaviors, which... well, the media still exaggerates everything. It's entirely possible that many sailors who actually saw these sea serpents (or the kraken, for that matter) were just as frustrated with the exaggerations in their stories, as many modern scientists are of the media doing the same thing.

Oh sure, no oarfish is going to rear up and swallow a boat Still big enough to be a shock if one swam near you though.

Still, it was a missed naming opportunity in my opinion.

if one day they find a giant Himalayan ape and don't name it yeti, I'll be very cross

 

[1137]

Yeah don't see a difference in "powers" or reasoning skills.

Then you have chosen to be blind.

 

[1137]

There is no such thing as magic that is not a trick played on the ignorance of those in the audience.

Prove it.