Talk:Magic (supernatural)/Archive 1

message: I have read this sentence a number of times, and I have no idea what is trying to say. The distinction between subtle and manifest has been lost in bad grammar. 
Manifest and Subtle magic typically refers to magic of legend rather than what many individuals who practise the Occult claim to use as magic, where Manifest magic is magic that immediately appears with a result, and Subtle magic being magic that gradually and intangibly alters the world.
--chemica 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtle v Manifest

message: I would like to propose that this discussion page get cleaned up and trimmed back a bit.
There are posts here that go back to 2003 to an antiquated version of the article that no longer exists, and most of the talk page is taken up by a ranting and hostile argument that took place over a year ago, and which are irrelevant to this article because the argument  devolved into name calling and flaming.
Keeping the more recent and/or relavent posts is of course important so that the current direction the page is going can be preserved along with those suggestions and ideas that are still being worked on or actively discussed.
--Arkayne Magii 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal of cleanup of Talk Page

message: :this was the cue for Gerald Gardner... he claimed to reveal the existence of a witch-cult
:Gardner's new religion combined magic
New implies that he made it up, instead of revealed a long-standing (and hidden) religion.  Is there any proof for that?
:feminists led the way when some launched an independent revival of goddess worship.
Ditto.
Thinking about it, I'm just going to make changes.
-- ~ender 2005-03-13 11:10:MST
:Is this the only reason for the NPOV notice now?  The paragraphs at issue now read:
::A further revival of interest in magic was heralded by the repeal, in England, of the last Witchcraft Act in 1951. This was the cue for Gerald Gardner, now recognised as the founder of Wicca, to publish his first non-fiction book Witchcraft Today, in which he claimed to reveal the existence of a witch-cult that dated back to pre-Christian Europe. Gardner's religion combined magic and religion in a way that was later to cause people to question the Enlightenment's boundaries between the two subjects.
::Gardner's newly publicized religion, and many others, took off in the atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s. . .
:Gardner's "cue" was the repeal of the last Witchcraft Act, which made witchcraft no longer a crime in England.  He "claimed to reveal the existence of a witch-cult. . ." — is it contested that he made this claim?  "Newly publicized religion" is fine with me.  If this doesn't need further work, I'd suggest removing the NPOV notice.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ?s 

message: As an occultist myself, I'd like to bring up the following points:
* [1] Magic has not yet been proven by any objective measure.
* [2] Perhaps magic will some day be proven, or it may just as easily be that something in the internal mechanism or nature of magick will always cause it to elude objective scientific detection (in practice if not in theory).
* [3] "Supposed" does not mean "fictional".  Semantically speaking, something can be "supposed" and still be true.  "Supposed" is ambiguous.
* [4] This page also deals with paranormal magic in fiction.  Practitioners of chaos magick aside, I'm sure all would agree that this alone necessitates the "supposed" in the opening sentence.
* [5] The afore notwithstanding, "supposed" in this context could be taken to merely indicate that the method of affecting reality doesn't always work.
I think the "supposed" needs to stay.  It seems reasonable and necessary, and I say this with a pro-magick POV. --Corvun 12:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Perhaps the first sentence might be recast to say, "Believers in magic (. . .) hope to influence the world. . . ."  This gets across the idea that not everyone believes in the power of magic, while avoiding the fictional or pretended overtones of "supposed." -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Supposed" or not? 

message: Apparently the NPOV header was attached to this page by Stevertigo, who objects to the "Changing attitudes towards magic" heading.  Why? and what would make it better? -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I objected to it because it implies a fact regarding the state of mind of people - which itself is challengeable on many grounds: 1. it implies a "change of attitute" specifically to "magic" 2. where "specific" as applied to the generic term "magic" makes for a kind of dual-pov paradox: what is "magic," what does one mean by it and in what context? IOW its not well defined or commonly understood enough to talk about it as something which people have specific opinions about. Wheras you might say "magic" to mean something inbetween Crowley, Tolkien and Lovecraft, established religion fundamentalists might would view "magic" as a synonym for heresy, blasphemy, "paganism," heathen idolatry, etc. Not that the  is really important to me, its just that the explanation of the term ambiguities, the history of the term, and the specific history of what the term means come WAY before any examination of "current public opinion." So facts first, pro and con public opinion represented as such, somewhere down beneath "magic in film." :)  PS Comment:reorderered sections - various hidden comments (edit page to view them) new top section "relating magic, religion, paganism and alchemy" underway. SV|t|th 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now.  (Didn't even get this before.)  Would something like, "Cultural attitudes towards magic" be better?  since that's what the section seems to be about, chiefly.  I read it, not as an attempt to change anyone's mind about magic, but rather as an account of how people have held different opinions about magic in different times and places. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I am not sure that the statement "As with all paranormal claims, magic has yet failed to be supported by credible controlled scientific experimentation, and can only be studied seriously for its influence in cultural or religious matters." that now appears in the introduction is NPOV itself.  It would appear to assert that no one who studies magic to practice magic should be taken seriously, and assumes that controlled scientific experiments are the gold standard of truth.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may or may not agree - in the sense that various aspects of "magik" cannot claim to be scientific: they can assert their "truth," but the relationship between magical/magickal phenomena and claims of truth as science needs a clear definition. This does not mean a disclaimer necessarily, but rather a note upfront which sets tone for the article: that 'people of magic view magic as an aspect of their faith, which is associated with blankety blank, and blankety blank etc. In the contexts of X and X magic has had confrontations with certain doctines held by people of science, and each claim that the other is a blankety blank, etc. Keep in mind also that "science" really means "methodology for the open study of knowledge" and does not itself assert truths, but rather observations of the observable (ie even M-theory is "only" philosophy if it cant be proven). You can say 'in the domain of faith and philosphy, magic has X and X conflicts with X and X doctrines of religion. In the domain of observable and testable phenomenae, magic has X and X conflicts with X and X aspects of science. Eh? -SV|t|add 08:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  a different definition of magic (well, maybe):::
to me, and others, magic  isnt black, or white, good or evil, its just there, it is the mind of the wielder that makes it good or evil, in what they  use it for.  kinda thought that belonged in the article some where, but im not sure where, so i tohught id mention it, a and see if anyone wold like to put it in, or to  tell me where to do so.
GabrielSimon
----
"Generally speaking, there are two types of magic: contagious magic and sympathetic magic."  According to who, or what theory? I think this statement is too bold without some backup. --Tubby 02:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOv header: why? 

message: The section "Suppression of Magical Beliefs" is mostly factually inaccurate. See my comments above.
Maprovonsha172 19:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the above discussion, I have removed this section from the article in chief, and am preserving it here.  Users are more than welcome to attempt to rewrite these paragraphs and attempt to improve them.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section, Suppression of magical beliefs

message: Examples of the suppression of magical belief and practice range from the eradication of neighboring polytheistic tribes by the early Hebrews, to the attempted suppression and eventual appropriation of pagan holidays by the Catholic Church, to the mingled motives of the Conquistadors, to the Salem witch trials of the Puritans. During such periods, the tendency of magic is to become more obscure and esoteric, with a certain element in society always managing to preserve lore and tradition, often in disguised or metaphorical terms.  This pattern gave rise to the term occult.
The motivation of much scientific enquiry is similar to the motivation of magic: that it is possible to discover the underlying reality behind mundane reality, and that that reality may have laws and principles which may be discovered and controlled.  Unlike the practice of magic, science has the scientific method to correct its errors.  As the scientific method took hold, astronomy evolved from astrology, and chemistry from alchemy.
:As per the above discussion, I have removed this section from the article in chief, and am preserving it here.  Users are more than welcome to attempt to rewrite these paragraphs and attempt to improve them.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of magical beliefs 

message: This article is currently 33k long and could probably use being split up a little. How would everyone feel about moving the 'History of Western  European magic' section into it's own article? Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page split