- Hey guys, just playing with an idea for a more modern definition of magic. To all my author mates please feel free to modify/and or/steal if anything decent, definition wise, comes out of the convo as I probably owe you all heaps anyway and really don't care :)
Magic: The ability to create change in one's life and environment, through applying natural sympathetic means that are, as yet, unexplainable scientifically in a given time, place and culture.
Please have at it!! Modify and correct at will!! I want to know what you think.
Update for those who give a shit: On my second last unit of my degree (done psych major, statistics minor, picked up a couple of advanced maths units and some biology and human health as electives), have averaged around 80% over the whole degree which sets me up well (only needed 70% average) to start on a Masters in Biostatistics (medical research analysis, three year course, may even be eligible for a trainee ship with three years well paid work experience and the Masters paid for by the health dept) after which I intend to specialize in neuroscience research. Still a long way to go but the goals are definitely in sight. It is about time that someone got qualified to bring science up to speed ;)
For those who don't know me, do I believe in magic?
- Even to Sir Isaac Newton!!!! They were One & the Same (back when Philosophy & Alchemy were almost interchangeable). I honestly think Ritual is more piviotal to Defining Magick than Sympathy.On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:52 PM, William Morris <wmorris33@...> wrote:
I would say that messy words such as magic could use definition - need it. By the time we have abstracted events and objects into language we have already transgressed the sacred ground of direct experience. It becomes necessary to wrestle with the words as entities unto themselves.
I see that you lean towards Kathy's definition - that magic is, “the ability to create change in one’s life and environment, through applying natural sympathetic means that are, as yet, unexplainable scientifically in a given time, place, and culture.” I agree with sympathetics as a feature, or a tool..Sinologist Paul Unschuld called it a doctrine of correspondences giving it a proto-scientific frame. But, do we make a definition based upon such? But, there is a deeper assumption in this definition which could stand problemetizing. If we define a practice by another practice - they are now both subject to scrutiny. How can we define magic relative to science without not wrestling with the problems of the idea science?
Towards a definition of science, we must likely look at the world views and paradigms of inquiry which inform the various perspectives.Warmly,
William R. Morris, PhD, DAOM, LAc
This message, including attachments, contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Do not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake, and delete this email from your system.