Talk:Magic (supernatural)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Magic (supernatural). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Secton on Islamic viewpoint of magic somewhat inaccurate

Sorry but I find the section inaccurate and to a degree, poorly written. It is definitely not the view of mainstream Islam (in mainstream Islam, magic is a sin punishable by death). It is true that some past authors have written about magic, and some sects have taken up some "magical" elements, but these have been generally rejected by mainstream Islam.

Furthermore the section includes such examples as "predicting the new future through astrolabes", does this fit under magic?

I think the section needs a major edit or a total rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IBaghdadi (talk • contribs) .

== PLZ WHOEVER WRITES ANYTHING HERE MAKE SURE YOU DON'T BLABBER THINGS U DUNNO ABOUT in islam magic isn't forbidden, any acts that leads to paganism, is forbidden and magic includes some of these acts. so it is not magic in general it's a certain act and predicting the future through astrology is also forbidden, cuz the future is only known by Allah (God Almighty) ==

--

Just a quick question here, but if only Allah knows the future, then predicting it through astrology would be pointless, and not a sin. (after all, if it is impossible to do then why bother forbidding it?) so these statements are mutually exclusive.

If Allah alone knows the future and thus Astrology does not work in predicting the future, then making it forbidden serves no purpose, since in this case, the sin of predicting the future through astrology could never actually occur. Thus in this statement the argument for astrology being a sin would be invalid.

On the other hand, if Astrology does work to predict the future, then it cannot therefore also be true that Allah alone knows the future, in which case the argument for it being a sin is once again invalid.

No offense is meant here, I'm really just curious as to how this is reconciled. --Arkayne Magii 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Magical thinking

I think the following is too cautious:

but some forms of magical thinking have existed within these religions throughout some of their history.

This refers to the Abrahmaic religions. I find them full of magical thinking throughout history. What is a Christian seeing the mother of a deity in a grilled cheese sandwich but magical thinking? I'm going to change it slightly. Maprovonsha172 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The interpretation of omens, etc, is not the same as spellcasting or other such activities which this article deals with, unless you've chosen to stretch the definition beyond the normal one. There shoudn't be any need to argue about this. 205.188.116.137 19:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Magical thinking is relevant to magic, there is even a section for it.

Maprovonsha172 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Those examples have nothing to do with "magic", a point that shouldn't need to be argued - but if you want to make such a claim, then the burden of proof rests with you. I would add that calling me a "prick" (on a user page) is not helping your cause: this type of abusive language can be grounds for suspension. 205.188.116.137 21:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they should go in the magical thinking article.03:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Several of these "magic" articles need tweaking. Sympathetic magic links here and that is not "paranormal" in the sense this word implies. To have it link here is really odd, as it is a psychology/anthropological term. I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, but will give it some thought. The term "magic" is used very loosly and the definitions of things may need to be solidified. There's Theurgy, then sympathetic magic, then alchemy, then "paranormal" stuff... multiple ideas limped together. I admit I need to read more, but just wanted to mention it for now, as I looked for sympathetic magic and ended up here. --DanielCD 16:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As I look, I'm answering my own questions. Sympathetic magic was at Sympathetic magick. I moved it as that spelling is quite incorrect for this. --DanielCD 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was James Frazer who coined the terms sympathetic magic, contagious magic, etc. They are used in the field of anthropology, yes, but are also now standard terms used by magicians, witches, etc. I'm not sure I understand you quite, but it seems you're trying to differentiate two categories: fields of magic that are studied historically or anthropologically, but not believed in, which you're saying aren't "paranormal" but "psychological"; and for everything else that modern western magicians and witches believe in, you allow the term "paranormal". I'm probably wrong in this interpretation of what you're saying, because it doesn't make sense. If you're going to call one type of magic paranormal, why not theurgy, alchemy and sympathetic magic? Could you explain? Fuzzypeg 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right; I am confused. Let me do some more thinking and reading before I comment further. --DanielCD 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Weird external links

Can I get some help reviewing and possibly removing external links here? I've already removed some pretty poor links. I would like to remove the "Veritas society" link, but I'll see what discussion there is before I do. I think good grounds for removing a link are: if they are low on information; if they are obvious lampoons; if the link is to an organisation more than to easily-navigable information (the Veritas site fits into this - there are some articles if you click through some links - but really it's mainly the organisation presented. I note that the articles are mostly paraphrases of other people's writings, and are attributed only to "the Veritas council". It's all a bit too shadowy for me). Remember there's no need to have lots of links - that's what google is for. This is a pretty central article for magicians, occultists, witches and neopagans. We deserve to have a good quality of article here. Fuzzypeg 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Would it possible to bring back, it contains aever increasing amount of info and I feel the page should modernise.

Freud's view on Magic

Would it be worth putting what Sigmund Freud thought of magic in this article? He advanced quite an influential view, being an influential figure himself. Basically, Freud thought a belief in magic resulted from animism (there is more at the Totem and Taboo article, but there are also other resources to derive from too). Your thoughts? --Knucmo2 13:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Magic, Magick, Witchcraft

What is the REAL difference among the three? I tried to read all three, and they seem to each be one side of the same triangle just written different. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 03:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My old comments on magic/magick can be found at Talk:Wicca/Archive_4#Magic vs. Magick. Witchcraft is magic (or magick) that has emphasis on certain methods that have long been associated with witches. The methods of witchcraft tend often to be pagan and syncretic in character, or nominally Christian with strong pagan undertones, and they often involve a strong physical basis (herb-work, cords, mixing potions, as well as interacting with the environment, plants and animals. Witchcraft is often considered to be "low magic" as opposed to "high magic" (i.e. concerned with physical outcomes rather than solely concerned with the advancement of the practitioner's soul), although Wicca (a modern form of witchcraft) certainly includes strong elements of high magic. Hope this helps... Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms "low magic" and "high magic" are Thelemic in origin, and since they do not originate from within the scope of the magical practice known as Witchcraft, witchcraft itself should not be considered using this terminology, as it is taken from Crowley's mention of magick as a "high art" (he never mentioned a categorisation of "high" or "low" magic, which is often derived from this statement.) which he seems to have taken from Hermetic and Gnostic principles that the body itself (or the material form) is somehow "impure" and thus "lower" than the mind/soul.

However, a great many of those who practice magic believe the opposite, that the body is either the container of, or an extention of the soul or spirit -and that the two are linked, neither one being more or less important- but both serving a natural purpose. Just as in many magickal traditions, the entirity of the physical world is simply another level of the spiritual world, and is therefore also spirit (and spirit cannot be less than spirit!)In these traditions the distinction between "high" and "low" ceases to exist and serves no other purpose than to impose a "subclass" status apon other traditions and beliefs that have different origins.

Also, saying that this categorization is "common" or "popular" isn't exactly accurate, since while it may be popular or common in some circles it is not nessecarily in others.

A more accurate phrasing might be something like:

The terms "Low" and "High" magick originated with Thelema, based on Crowley's definition that Magic was a "High Art." and though he makes no mention of "low magick" specifically, it has come to be considered by those whose traditions and learning are influenced by Crowley and Thelema to be manipulation of the physical world, with "high magick" being the search for personal spiritual advancement.

These terms are not generally used by those outside of traditions influenced heavily by Thelema and Crowley, which often see the spiritual and physical as being part of the same natural system, and therefore equal in importance and merit, and to whom the terms "high" and "low" magick would have little meaning.

--Arkayne Magii 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Something else that I would like to bring up here that I feel is appropriate, It is my personal belief that only those who actually believe in and use magic should be editing the magic page, rather than scientists or rationalists who would rather see the entire subject dissapear into antiquity based on the idea that it is "irrational", Just as it would be inappropriate for mystics, spiritualists, occultists, magicians, shamans, etc. to edit the pages for quantum physics, relativity, biochemistry, etc. (unless they happen to be experts in the field, of course)

The reason for my saying this is that the word "Alleged" has snuck into the definitions on this page, and they made it seem quite hostile and skeptical. These phrases do not belong in this page, just as I would not say "Einstein allegedly wrote the theory of relativity" or "the alleged theory of quantum mechanics states..." it should not be said "the alleged belief that magick can make changes to physical reality." because it implies a predisposition towards a personally percieved inaccuracy or foolishness within the statement.

Because of this, I edited the term out.

--Arkayne Magii 08:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I realise that I am editing a lot tonight, and so I am a bit long-winded, and for that I apoligize. I just wanted to make one last comment about an edit that I made that I feel is important when dealing with the subject of magic, and that is the categorization of magic as being a "Pseudoscience".

Magic is not always rational, as it deals with subjects that are outside the realm of everyday perception. For a great many, it is not only an outward creation of change within physical reality but it is also a way of life. Magic is used in many traditions as the bridge between the spiritual or divine and the physical. In this way it is held that magic therefore is the effect of conscious and active choices in manipulating the path one's life will take in the future and purposefully crafting one's life so that one can achieve specific goals. These choices are based on instinctive (and therefore irrational) perceptions of subtle interconnections and effects that lie beyond the scope of normal perception, (since our perceptions are based on what we understand and accept as being "possible") and which the Magician is trained (either on their own or by a legitimate teacher) to see.

Therefore I say that only a very few branches of magical study and practice could be considered "pseudoscience" (if any at all) and indeed the term pseudoscience is one of those which has a different meaning depending on who reads -or writes- it. after all, to an industrial engineer between 1930 and 1995, environmental and ecological sciences were considered pseudoscience.

While there are subjects that could be considered pseudoscience, Alchemy, Astrology, Herbology and other subjects which are associated with magic do not belong under this category, since they were the origins of many current branches of science. Chemistry, Astronomy, Medicine, Botany, Biochemistry, and even Physics originated from these more arcane subjects, to prove my point, would you consider Isaac Newton to be a pseudo-scientist because his official title was "Alchemist"?

It is on this basis that I removed the "pseudoscience" category listing at the bottom of the page for related categories.

--Arkayne Magii 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I love the Etymology section. very well written! I would suggest moving the "Magic and Religion" section to just before the "Religious views on Magic" section, since the two subjects are interconnected and it might improve the flow of the page as a whole. If I see any other major ways to potentially improve this article, I'll be sure to note them here. so far so good! :)

Oh! and it might be good to remove the massive argument about science vs. magic that appears on this talk page, since it appears to be old (Sep. 2005) and it is wasting space, making the rest of the talk page hard (and tedious) to read. I don't have the authority to to that, but I would still like to suggest it.

Also, Magic (Stage Magic) should probably go under Magic (Entertainment) after all, not all Entertainment Magic is performed on the stage, unless you want to add and redirect from "Magic (Street)" and "Magic (Prestidigitation)" as well, which might not be a bad idea (as subtopics of Magic (Entertainment) they almost deserve seperate mention from one another, but that's all beside the point.)

I would also like to suggest the creation of a new WikiProject specifically for the topic of Magic(k) rather than keeping it in the broader WikiProject(Paranormal) since that wikiproject is already covering so many other topics, since many aspects of magic are spread out over many different WikiProjects (Including WikiProject(Thelema) which has taken over the entirity of the Magick page) and since many branches of Magical study, philosophy, etc. are not based in the paranormal (such as the concept of magic as a lifestyle, or the various mystical, philisophical, religious, and psychological schools of thought.) I do not know how to go about this myself, as I am still fairly new to the Wikipedia system, but it is something that I would very much like to see considering the very broad scope of the overall subject of Magic. The topic of Magic (including Magick)is broad enough to warrant this change, and it would help in that it would unify the categorization of the various subtopics to make them more clear and consistant.

--Arkayne Magii 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggested wording. Firstly, "High magic" and "Low magic" were not coined by Crowley, but rather, I believe, by Eliphas Levi in his Dogma and Ritual of High Magic. I don't have the book on hand, so I can't confirm that right now, but I believe that to be the case. Secondly, these terms are used by the western magical community in general. They are certainly not exclusively, or even primarily, Thelemic terms.

Now, re. non-magicians editing Magic (paranormal): it is a fundamental WP concept that all articles are editable by everyone. We can try to enforce a neutral point of view, but neither can nor should restrict who can edit.

Regarding the pseudoscience category, there are those who might argue that pseudoscience has an unnecessarily bad name. The basic fact is, though, that magic is often not scientifically verifiable, and when (if) it is, there has been little acceptance of these findings amongst the scientific community. If magic were never presented in scientific terms, but only in, say, religious or spiritual terms, then of course it couldn't be called a pseudoscience, however magic has often been presented as "scientific" and been given scientific-sounding explanations, ranging from the reasonable to the gut-crampingly ridiculous. Every second book about magic seems to contain explanations in "scientific" terms involving ether, magnetism, vibrations, etc, etc, often suggesting that new scientific discoveries just around the corner might confirm (or already have confirmed) what occultists have known for thousands of years. So "pseudoscience" seems a reasonable categorisation.

Alchemy is not associated with any current branch of science. Chemistry came out of alchemy, it's true, but now bears little resemblance to the Royal Art.

I approve of removing terms like "alleged" and "supposed", particularly from the introductory section, as long as it doesn't make the tone of the article seem too dogmatic. When an article seems to be written from only one point of view, it makes it sound less authoritative and believable, rather than more. I'll have a look. Cheers, Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

These are very good points, As for the "High" and "Low" Magic terminology - In my reading regarding the terms they had always been asociated with Crowley, and I rarely encountered the terms outside of those coming from the thelemic (or other traditions borrowing from Thelema and Crowley) which is why I disagreed with it in the first place, but I just read up on Eliphas Levi earlier today and so I agree with what you're saying regarding this.

As for the pseudoscience category, I suppose that that is something I'll just have to live with. That has always been one of the more annoying aspects of modern writing about magick for me, but I think that the majority of the pseudoscientific aspects are contained within the "New Age" and "Metaphysics" labels more than magic(k) specifically. Luckily, I am seeing more well written, well researched, and serious books coming out every month about magic and less and less "New Age" type pseudoscience. Hopefully this trend will continue.

Although there have been a few theories I've heard that I thought were interesting, I must admit, but those were written by people with high levels of experience, training, and schooling in the physics and mathematics. I tend not to pay much attention to those proporting to be "scientific explanations" of magickal effects that are written by someone who never even passed an algebra test in college and graduated instead with a bachelor's degree in english with a minor in religious studies.

However, I must say that while there were a lot of books like that published, the majority of them had little to do with magic and more to do with spirituality and even religion, and so I do not believe there is enough pseudoscience in the entirity of the subject of magic to justify it being placed under the category of pseudoscience.

I think the subjects of "Metaphysics" and "New Age" would be more appropriate for that, since these two subjects seem to exist solely for the purpose of creating and maintaining pseudoscientific "explanations" of mystical and spiritual beliefs. (though perhaps a redirect to these to subjects would be good for people who are interested more in the pseudoscience.)

As for the non-magicians editing the category, I do see your point, and I agree with you, but it's still annoying. :P

And finally, on the use of the words "aledged" and "supposed", Thank you. Im sure there are other ways to keep a neutral voice to the article without using these terms.

--Arkayne Magii 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of the category "Metaphysics" since it captures the important info (that magic extends beyond normally accepted science), but has none of the derogatory connotations. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph: supernatural and paranormal

I've reworded the intro again, to restore some of the informativeness about different usages of the terms, that had been removed. I've also taken out what I believe are over-specific statements about how magic works: magic may use "natural mystical and spiritual energies and forces", but I doubt you'll find consensus on this in the literature. I personally feel that "energies" and "forces" are simply handy metaphors for something more fundamental. You could equally substitute "pattern" for "energy" or "force", for instance. Fortunately this is not a point that needs to be established in the intro section, though, and it's easy to word things more generally.

Mentioning a "divine source" as an alternative is a little misleading, as most magical world-views are built on the understanding that everything is of divine source.

I agree that the term "supernatural" is a bit wierd, considering many practitioners would hold that magic relies on natural laws (there being nothing outside nature), and most sceptics would similarly hold that there is nothing "outside of" nature; I think this term really comes from a dualist world-view, in which God and the hosts of heaven (and presumably, magic) are outside of and separate from nature, yet still affect it. There should possibly be some mention of this term in the article, explaining its common usage vs. its lack of usage in the magical community.

The term "paranormal" however seems quite reasonable, since it describes things that are outside of the norm, either outside normal reality or outside people's normal expectations of reality. I've used that term in the intro.

Feel free to make improvements/alterations to the intro section, or discuss other possibilities here. Thanks, Fuzzypeg ☻ 03:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I logged in and found it completely reworded (poorly)as an argument against the term "supernatural" so I cleaned it up the best I could, since I don't really know how to 'revert' an article to undo a change like that. I didn't have a lot of time when I did clean it up though, I liked the definition we had before, so I appreciate the change.

-Arkayne Magii 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy)

Since the "In fiction" section deals almost exclusively with fantasy, it might be more fitting in the Wizard (fantasy) article. Goldfritha 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Aztec and Mayan Magic?

Can anyone add more information about their emphasis and practices in magic?

thank you! somebody finally added practices of magic! jeeeeez! Yet when I added something on magical practice (medieval and modern [1600s is modern]), it was deleted immediatly, though it was completely true! I'd know. I know somewhat of a historian....not actually as his/her job, but an obsessive interest.

Merge from Spell (ritual)

I'm trying to merge Spell (ritual) into this article, and there's almost nothing that needs incorporating here, that article being basically a very poorly rehash of this one. There's only one ( ! ) piece of text that I think might be worth saving:

"In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas wrote that if a person has a spell put on them that causes them to get married, the marriage is invalid."

This however seems like pretty inconsequential trivia unless it's placed in a specific context, such as magic and law. Does anyone have any bright ideas as to where it might be useful?

One thing that that article does focus on is persecution on the grounds of magical practice, which this article only touches on. I don't think any of the material there is usable (it's all original research), but it's a good thought for one area in which this article could be expanded some time. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The page was attracting more spam links, and I decided to be bold and forge ahead with the redirect. It's done. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Magical currents?

Could someone elaborate on the concept and theory behind the ideas of the magickal current? And its relevance to belief of occult practioners?--Redblossom 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [Comment moved from the article to the discussion page by Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)]

According to some schools of thought, each separate magical tradition has its own "magical current," created and sustained by the efforts of the members of that particular tradition. According to this paradigm, for instance, Wiccan magic and Ordo Templi Orientis magic may be fundamentally the same, but each tradition will have its own distinct magical current--indeed, some Wiccans feel that each Wiccan tradition has its own magical current.

I don't necessarily agree with the concept, but I can understand how it could be a useful model for those who do. Justin Eiler 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

there should be

there should be a section for afictional uses of magic (parnomal) in this world. Smith Jones 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Article

While I am well aware of both the fact that: a) wikipedia is not a repository of links b) wikipedia's links are nofollow type links

I still feel the inclusion of an essay type article I have written is suited for inclusion in this article. Twice I have added my article inregards to magic in the chinese Taoist tradition, specifically the use of amulets, spells, and chinese alchemy. And twice the link has been removed.

The purpose of the article is not to prove or disprove any supernatural realities of magic, but to highlight the psychological and physiological effects of magic, especially those in use by Ritual Taoists.

Since the article does not seem to cover the same points in any of the attached external links and is barely touched upon by the paragraphs within the article itself, I felt that instead of (dare I say) EDIT the Magic page content, that I would rather merely link to my article.

I do not feel that I am being opportunistic, or aggressive in my inclusion of the link but because I believe in being an orderly person who is in the opinion my viewpoint over the matter is suitable for inclusion that I propose that under the graces of those perhaps too carefully watching over this article consider what I have requested.

My article in question is: http://citadel01. co . nr /tao/index.php/essays/talismans-and-magic/ located here

Spaces added to above url due to blacklisting.MrBill3 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia for years and have helped shape a small number of articles, while I don't care to brag about what little I have contributed, I say this only to state I don't feel myself as an outsider here.

thank you,

--64.229.65.208 06:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no outsiders in Wikipedia, really, or that's the intended philosophy; there are, however, more experienced editors who have gained more familiarity with Wikipedia policies and principles (and technical aspects of editing). One of these policies, that you seem unfamiliar with, is the No original research policy. A closely related policy is that regarding the citing of self-published sources.

This is something that many Wikipedia editors have to struggle with: the fact that they feel something is true, and worthy of inclusion in an article, but they cannot find a reputable and reliable source who makes this statement. In such situations you cannot fill in as the expert and make these claims yourself, regardless of your knowledge and expertise in the subject.

Wikipedia used to have a rule against citing or linking to one's own work; the idea was that if your work was really that good and relevant to the subject, then another editor would eventually add it to the article as a source or an external link. It seems they have relaxed this policy somewhat, however they still quite clearly state that if you wish to cite or link your own work, you must ensure that you yourself meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.

This is also covered under Wikipedia's policy regarding external links: The list of links to avoid includes: "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority."

I suspect that you don't meet the criteria for a reputable source, and thus the webpage you've written is thus not appropriate for an external link. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Botched archive and and editor run amok

User:Smith Jones attempted to archive this page just a little while ago, and removed all comments, including the most recent. The resulting page contained several inanities as well as a large number of spelling mistakes. I have had other run-ins with this editor, who acts like a newbie, but has experimented with some very weird edits, generally making a mess of things. I have directed him to the various welcome pages, but (without wanting to be insulting) he still seems to have little idea of how to make constructive edits.

He also does some quite questionable things like edit the signature on his posts to change the apparent time of post, and so on. Please be on the lookout for edits by this person, as he may require substantial clean-up after him. Thanks, Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page about this matter. I have alot of concerns about his edits as well (esp his userpage content). It would probably be best for any who are involved, or who wish to be involved, to take this to your or my talk page. NeoFreak 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

im glad that your inviting people to harrass sme or talk about be behind my back on your talk pages. i dont know which rule your doiing this under but it isnt ain any of the ones that ive been reading on the wlecome pages that oeople have been living me. it was my mistake that leads to archiving recent discussion but other people make mistakes and they dont get harassed all over wikipedia. nice to see that you guys are going to be nice and polite abouut this whole thingSmith Jones 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

white magic

would someone feel up to starting a page on white magic? theres a black magic page, an 'occult' page, but white magic just redirects here, though there isnt a single mention of white magic other then that in hinduism they distinct between white and black magic. i think white magic has more historical significance than that· Lygophile has spoken 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IF YOU WANT we can star t w white magic aritlce up here and then transfe rit to its own page sonce the people her eare have argreed to do it like that. Smith Jones 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

you mean, in the talkpage? ow wait, you mean, in this article as a seperate section and then at some point make it a sperate article...well yeah that sounds good, but i dont know much about white magic (hence i went looking)· Lygophile has spoken 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I conclude that it might be best to include a little more on the Christianity section. While Christianity may regard magic as a sin, that does not mean that they believe that witches are evil, so much as that they are doing wrong without realizing it.(Valkrath 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Is there anything particularly important we need to say about white magic? Anything that wouldn't fit in a paragraph or two? I agree with Smith Jones that we should expand any mention of white magic in this article with any information that seems appropriate, and if it gets big, move it to a new article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzypeg (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

the pentagram

There is a mention of pentagrams, along with an accompanying picture. However, despite the caption, the picture is actually of a "pentangle," a medieval symbol for chivalry and virtue. A pentagram in an inverted pentagram (the point downwards), just as how turning a cross/crucifix upside down makes it "unholy".72.74.96.168 06:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've mistyped "A pentagram is an inverted pentagram". No. The word "pentagram" doesn't have any implication regarding orientation. It can have one point up, two points up, or be spinning, for all the difference it makes. "Pentangle" is simply a synonym for pentagram, so a pentangle can be in any orientation too. I spent rather a long time recently going through a number of dictionaries getting a detailed understanding of the usage of these words (because of another Wikipedia disagreement), and I can assure you, there is no special orientation. Also, turning the pentagram with one point down doesn't make it "unholy", except according to some popular culture. The pythagoreans (who popularised the symbol as a mystical device) seem to have normally drawn it one-point-down, and other traditions such as Wicca also use this orientation without any implications of "evil", "bad" or "unholy". Similarly, an inverted crucifix is not "unholy", except in popular culture born out of pulp novels and B-grade movies: it is the Cross of St. Peter, and has its own honoured place within Christianity. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Science, magic and the insidious snare of belief

This section is written in an in-universe perspective. Magic does not exist and it is for the better that its existence is consigned to the pages of history. Let's try and clean-up the article and remove the parts that deal with magic as if it really exists and is not a fabrication of over-active imaginations or over-hungry wallets.

This post was not signed, so for information purposes it was written by: Laernaes on: 21:27, 7 August 2007 - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Urr, ah, prove it!!? I quite agree that this article should treat magic as an unproven theory, but it should not be treated as a disproven theory, because it cannot be disproven. It is also part of the belief system of a great number of people, me for one. I have such a rich and constant awareness of and interaction with magic in my life that telling me it doesn't exist is like me telling you that electricity doesn't exist. Pointless. I don't want to be drawn into an argument or requests to prove my beliefs; I suggest if you want a bit more information about the magical worldview you read the first few chapters of SSOTBME by Ramsey Dukes. Lets just take a WP:NPOV as we have been doing. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There was so much POV in that statement of yours im not sure you should be editing this article. I agree that it shouldnt be worded to suggest it exists, but by the same token it shouldnt be worded to suggest it doesnt either. It should be neutral. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Having a point of view does not disqualify people from editing the article. Please assume good faith and remain civil. IPSOS (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I find someone insulting a religion "over active imaginations".. "over-hungry wallets".. these could be insulting terms to someone who practices a religion that includes magic. It was civil of me to address it only by saying his bias (to the point of insulting) might lend him to rethink about editing such an article. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I expressed my POV was to demonstrate that your POV, "Magic does not exist ... fabrication of over-active imaginations or over-hungry wallets" is not a universal belief. I'm quite capable of putting my personal convictions aside and editing based on verifiability and neutral point of view, which is what is required to produce encyclopedic articles. I presume you are too, seeing as you seem to agree with me on that principle. In terms of how we frame our discussion of magic (and other "paranormal" subjects), there is guidance for this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Principles. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do agree ont he principle of NPOV, as i hope most wikipedians do. That is a good thing, and if your able to keep your personal convictions aside that is fine. But id suggest you be a little less harsh with your wording on the talk pages, and in general. As for "to demonstrate that your POV..." I sort of lost you there. What POV of mine did you want to demonstrate? - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed a bit of confusion here that sort of lead me and fuzzy down the wrong path of argument. For sake of clarification of future readers i want to paste what i mentioned in regards to thsi thread here:

I think you (fuzzypeg) have me confused with someone else. (in fact i had you confused with someone else in the same way)... You seem to attribute the statement that started the thread: "This section is written in an in-universe perspective. Magic does not exist and it is for the better that its existence is consigned to the pages of history. Let's try and clean-up the article and remove the parts that deal with magic as if it really exists and is not a fabrication of over-active imaginations or over-hungry wallets." To me. I did not write this. In fact, my initial reply was under the impression that you wrote it (since it was unsigned and you were the one who replied to it i though it was part of your statement). Now that i look at it i see you didnt make this statement, and neither did I. So i think we both just mistook each other for the wrong person. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a pretty new user and not the person who started this edit; As far as I can tell, Magic is a belief system (or many belief systems) and not (or at least is no longer) an attempt to describe object reality. But to my eye this article (sometimes) comes from the perspective that it's the later and not the former. Tall Dan 04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)-

Actually, there is a great deal of "attempting to describe object reality" in the practice and belief in Magick, both historically and in modern day view. Many believers in magick over the past century have applied the writings of Jungian psychology as well as basic physics to their understanding of Magick to create a more hollistic and logical belief structure. This means that in modern magickal belief, not only is it a belief system, but it is also a conjunction of ideals on the nature of objective and subjective reality. So both views are in fact valid for the purposes of this topic. --Arkayne Magii 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that sort of thing was science's job? More to the point, I thought the "light socket" parts of Magic have already been absorbed into Science?

RE: Light Socket Test In class one day the issue of whether electricity was a "real" object (from a legal perspective) came up. The Prof asked the leader of the "it's not real" group to "take this key" (Prof held out a key and the guy started to go get it) "...and put it in this light socket." (guy sat down). Tall Dan 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussing and attempting to understand reality is properly the domain of philosophy, of which science forms one subset, and magic forms another (and religion another, etc.). But regardless of semantics, it seems pretty obvious to me that a magical world-view is a "world-view" (i.e. an understanding of reality). Whether or not you personally agree with such world-views is immaterial to this article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All very true Fuzzypeg; My personal agreement or disagreement is immaterial, and magic is a "world-view", as is religion (etc). However parts of this artical appears to be written from a "this is provabily true" perspective (i.e. as a science based article would be), rather than from a "this is what is believed" perspective (i.e. religious).Tall Dan 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Well, doing a quick scan through the article I can find a few places where you might be able to argue this, but most of the article is liberally scattered with comments to the effect that magic is an unproven theory. It seems pretty clear to me. If there's anything you find really misleading, though, just go ahead and fix it. Fuzzypeg ☻ 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "unproven" isn't anywhere in the article. :) Specifically I think it's odd this kind of disclaimer isn't in the introductory paragraph. We say, Magic and sorcery are the influencing of events, objects, people, and physical phenomena by mystical, paranormal or supernatural means. That sounds a lot like introducing Jesus as "our lord and the savior of all mankind". I would suggest putting in "attempts to influence" or "the attempted influence". Tall Dan 15:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that guidance for adequate framing has been given at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Principles. Now, the etymology section should probably be moved further down the article, in which case the first section proper would begin by discussing "The belief that one can influence supernatural powers" (my emphasis), and would go on to Frazer talking about the folly of magical observations. But there's actually an even better summary paragraph under the "Classical antiquity" heading, that doesn't relate only to classical antiquity. I'll move that up to directly under the History heading. See what you think. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the framing link (thank you), my feeling is what we're missing is an etymology section more than a re-write. Tall Dan 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree here, To someone who actually practices Magick (i.e. as an action) this sounds similar to the statement "The belief that one can clean dishes by using a sponge" since it is not only something they "believe in" it is something they do, regardless of whether or not the Magick they practice actually produces a result. Belief comes into play with the end results. In other words, the belief isn't in the act, it's in the results. If you take this into account, saying "Belief" in Magick isn't quite right. "Belief in the results of Magickal Practice" is much more accurate in this sense.

So in your reply above, FP, I would word it more along the lines of "The attempts to influence or the belief in the influencing of supernatural powers" or something like that, separating the practice from the perception of the results. --Arkayne Magii 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magic (supernatural)/Archive 2 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Shortcut

User_talk:Debeo_Morium/Chats/Metaphysics

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In that sense, Science could also be classified as a world view- after all, the purpose of science is not to prove or disprove theories, but to define the most likely case. there are theories in use by science that are contradictory in nature but have equal evidence as to their validity. The way science is often referenced here as "a collection of facts and methods that is absolute and certain" -i.e. the view that science is foolproof is in itself a fallacy. As long as there are alternate and contradictory theories in science, then none can be seen as certain- As long as this is the case, then Science is still a world-view as well. --Arkayne Magii 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well cogito ergo sum summed it up pretty well. Nothing in this world is a fact. We have no way of knowing this isnt all a dream, or the matrix, or anything else. By the same token the things we accept on fact is built on theories. When one underlining theory is debunked the whole tapestry unravels. So i agree, science is a world view just like religion. But unfortunately we all need to play along and use science to prove any points generally accepted as fact. So i see science as magick with just some different rules and regulations. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that perspective. --Arkayne Magii 13:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. That comes close to putting science in compitation with the other world views. Granted, we know parts of Science are wrong. The theory of Gravity is certainly showing it's age and is due for replacement. But whatever replaces that theory will still have to deal with the Fact of Gravity. Most world views are cultural constructs, i.e. belief systems. Science isn't really a belief system in the same way. Tall Dan 15:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In real life i think science should be in competition with other world views. However thats not the way people int he world think. So im willing to play along and give science some higher authority when dealing with someone who only associates with science as their faith. I am a scientist, and science is a helpful tool. So is magick, and while magick can not prove or disprove science, science can not prove or disprove magick. At least not yet, quantum physics may change that one day. But none of this matters for wikipedia, here we are based on science not magick. We must reflect this in our postings and how we talk. So i do agree with the general idea that the article should be NPOV. It should neither suggest magick is real, nor suggest it is not. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Science has earned it's "higher authority" because it isn't faith based. That's true even when it's obviously wrong. Gravity (the theory) is wrong, but it's strength is it's the best theory we have (it comes the closest to fitting the testable facts). Someday that will change.Tall Dan 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but science is faith based. You must have faith this world isnt a dream. you must have faith your perceptions accurately depict the world we live in. you must have faith that the hundreds of theories which form the groundwork for larger more complex theories are fact (and not theories at all). You must, unfortunately, have a great deal of faith to believe in science (im saying this as a scientist who works with science as a profession, lol). At one point science believed that things were made of elements. Wood must have earth in it because its hard, and fire because it burns. When science had reason to believe otherwise almost everything we knew about science changed as that one "theory" changed. So while it does base its conclusions off of observation, and yes the wood was still hard even after we realized our old science world-view was wrong, you can say the same abut magick. Magick is about observation, drawing theories from it, and being willing to change those theories as you learn more about how the system works. Its all faith based, knowing anything in life about anything requires faith. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Very fine words sir. They imply both systems should be taken on the same level. But no matter how much someone may doubt science, putting that previously mentioned key into a light socket should convince them of the need to respect it. Tall Dan 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By the same token a practitioner of magick would say, if you invoke a demon you would soon learn to respect magick. For those who practice it the effects and observations are very real, and tangible. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The key words there are, "For those who practice it". This is why I hesitate to call science 'faith based'. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not magic exists (i.e. etymology as the framing advice put it). People who disagree with science and test that key are in for a shock. And this section is getting kind of large, should we start a "etymology" section? Tall Dan 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you dont practice it you cant have respect for it because you wont experience. The same way you cant respect electricity unless you put that key int he socket. My point is magick is quiet real for someone, even if they dont believe, if they take the time to try to experience it. Invoke a demon, believe or not, and you'll know its real. The reason reasonable people disagree on magick more often then science is only because less people have taken the time to put any serious consideration into it. They look at it from a far and make summary judgments. But yes, feel free to move this to an etymology section - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I have been on Wikipedia, there have been a great deal of people trying to edit this article specifically to reflect the idea that magick is *not* real. This *belief* is completely non-NPOV. The same goes with people trying to state it as if it *is* real. As you said, it needs to be NPOV. However, I don't believe that calling Magick a "supposed", "alleged", "unproven", "archaic", or "Misguided" *belief* is NPOV either. I have argued this before, as each term automatically implies falsehood or ignorance to the average reader, either in regards to the subject of Magick as a whole, or to those that practice and study it, which is definately not NPOV.

Just as it is NPOV in my opinion that the external links only point to sites that have a rather obvious bias against magick, either philosophically, religiously, or because of their specifically "scientific" viewpoint, thus implying that the only valid ideas regarding magick are those with a negative spin without also showing the opposing view by equally having links to well-formed sites that take a positive view of the practice and provide relavant information to that effect. (In other words, the external links list is biased and unbalanced to make the entire subject seem rediculous.) --Arkayne Magii 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree withyou on the terms, the word b belief is fitting, and i would support its use. Just as i would do the same for any science based article on just about anything. But i you can somehow portray that it is neither true nor false without using the term belief et al then id support that as well. However i do agree with you on the external links, it should be balanced. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)