Conversations About Magic
Apr. 26th, 2011 11:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Late last night, Twitter user IDMclean asked me some questions about magic, over on Twitter, and I did my best to answer them as completely as possible. The conversation is under the cut. I've edited it only lightly, for things like paragraphs and full stop punctuations, but that's about it. Feel free to disagree, or whatever. I'd love to talk to you about it.
IDMclean:I have to admit, I haven't spent much time looking at the universe from the magic perspective. In a very general sense, what is magic?
Me: VERY tricky question. Magic, as I use the term, can most succinctly be described as mechanisms for perceiving & affecting symbolic resonances, into the "physical" world. However, as OTHERS use the term, magic can range from "Principles of Sympathy & Contagion" (a thing which is like a thing/touches a thing can affect a thing), to "Very Useful Psychological Tools."
IDMclean: So magic's a method or process of actually becoming?
Me: I would agree to that, yes. In any of these theories, magic takes Ideas & turns them into Effects, by... Not the most "direct" but the most "meaningful-/useful-/understandable-"to-the-practitioner/community/intended-recipient-route.
IDMclean: Sympathy and Contagion is that like Cause and Effect or Construction and Deconstruction?
Me: Good question. In its initial form, the theory of Sym./Cont. was about cause & effect. W/ the right symbolic associations & the right actions, one can bring out of a Ritual an effect of similarity. I pour this water, say these words, UNDERSTAND the union of these actions in the "Correct" way... & it Rains.
Or: I get you to tell me how you see a door, or a window, or a clear path. What security, stability, & food mean, what tokens *click* w/ you, when you think of those. Then I arrange these things. I intone, or display, or burn them (for instance), & you come into some money. Or something. But Sym/Cont. is just a component to many, to be used in addition to other tools.
IDMclean: I understand magic in terms of the game Mage: the Ascension. It describes magic as a set or related concepts. In Mage, one has a paradigm, foci, spheres of influence, rotes, rituals, resonances, willpower, arete, essence & paradox. How would you distinguish magic from the trappings of foci and ritual?
Me: Well, 1st I would say that it doesn't necessarily have to Be distinguished. Some conceptions of magic require ritual, or rather the "trappings" (interesting word) of ritual lend a certain accretion of focus, will, intent, &/or belief to the proceedings, a concentration of symbolic resonance which an individual might otherwise be unable to maintain, on her own.
After that I'd say that any magic which DOES distinguish itself from ritual &c does so by increasing any of some other things: Intent or will of the practitioner; the depth or "strength" of the symbol being tapped; general background belief in potential, which is to say, a general belief that "Weird Shit" happens, thus, to a certain type of magic, making it more likely to happen.
IDMclean: Would you agree that the foci are for the benefit of the user and the effected world rather than necessary for magic's effects?
Me: Yes & no: Depends on the mindset of the user & the mindset of affected world. Doesn't mean that those who need it are "less," simply that certain perspectives, certain types of effects, are sometimes more easily attained w/ particular tool sets.
IDMclean: Alright, as the hours grow late, I would like to step back to a more general perspective. What are the general correspondences between technology and foci, magic and science? Do they agree, disagree, both, or neither? Or none of the above?
Me: From a particular perspective, Science & Magic necessarily overlap, because they're both human endeavors by which we try to understand &/or control the universe around us. Because of this, they'll have areas where they can speak to each other, but also areas where they Can't. Magic takes things like psychological states as "real;" They have an impact on magical effects & while they mayn't be Quant'ively measurable in many scientific systems, they're qual'ively important in many magical ones.
So, for instance, the usage of cybernetic theory-- reflexive systems of adaptive control-- has great potential for application in Magical practice. Understanding the mechanisms whereby a component assesses changes in its system/environ. & adapts to it can provide a magician w/ a conceptual framework for operating in various societal structures.
IDMclean: What kind of benefits could a working scientists gain from magic and magical principles if any?
Me: Well, the kinds of associative leaps required by many forms of magic are similar to those made in hypothesis formation, or even the state in which considered scientific data finally comes together as "Information." I could use the well-worn examples of the benzine ring, or DNA double-helix, but also consider many of Nikola Tesla's "Flashes," wherein he'd suddenly grasp concepts w/ which he'd previously struggled (& receive fully-formed applications thereof). Trances, associative rituals, lucid dreaming, thought-form (Tulpa) creation/manipulation. All of these could be used to approach hard data in novel ways.
IDMclean: What you're describing would seem to be abduction as Charles Sanders Peirce formulated it. Are you familiar with his work?
Me: I know of abductive reasoning, but unfortunately not the all of Pierce's work. It's similar to abduction, yes, but not so definite.
IDMclean: Arthur C. Clarke once infamously wrote "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Do you agree?
Me: I would agree, with the added corollary "Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." To open that up a little, one of the marks of magic is that, to the outside, it's seamless. The more we can see how it's done, the more it's just "Doing Stuff." But that's not necessarily "Bad." All magic IS "Doing Stuff." But all doing stuff is Magic.
IDMclean: Does magic have any limits, any hard boundaries? Also, how does magic differ from metaphysics?
Me: In a sense, the application of magical tech. is only limited by imagination & ability to find/convince others of correlations. If you find a way to alter the perceptions of large groups of people so as they believe that the sky turned green, thus proving that you're the reincarnation/return of Thor, and your 2,789 year rain* of blood begins w/ the shrieking of the wind, then there you are. As to the metaphysics question; in the philosophical sense, magic is more like Applied Metaphysics.
Instead of asking "What Exists & What Does that Existence Mean?" magic says, "Believe, for now, that X is the nature of things: Now what can we Do With It?"
IDMclean: Why does what we believe matter at all?
Me: That's a very intricate question w/ nothing like an agreed-upon answer. But it's not like anything I've said, tonight, is Canon. So look at it this way (then I should think about heading bedward): If everything we do starts as a thought, idea, or belief (and that can be seen as a BIG "If"), then what we believe is part of the causal chain of what we do and create. If true, then what we believe changes what we do, & to an extent it changes what we Can Do. The way we understand the world forms what I've referred to as "Invisible Architectures." Modes of thought, structures of unquestioned belief; unexamined because to examine them is like a fish asking "Why is water?" It's fundamental, forming the very fabric of what we do & what we are.
But we have the ability to investigate these architectures, to question the weave of what we do, & by doing so we're more able to change What we can Understand/Do & How we Understand/Do it. Magic is a tool for investigating this, one which itself requires-- to an extent-- a measure Of belief. What we believe matters because it shapes what we can think & what we can do.
IDMclean: Parting shot, how does your Invisible Architectures differ from paradigms?
Me: When humanity or a theoretical field enters into a paradigm, it can generally be seen, either in hindsight, or from the vantage .of a different field. As I see it (heh), Invisible Architectures form the stuff the paradigms are made of. On a human systemic level, they're Fundamental assumptions like "things exist," and "action occurs." Every so often, we bump up against the corners of our invisible architectures, & things are radically different. We can see things we couldn't. But I think the mechanisms of "paradigm shifts" & "discovering invisible architectures" are similar but different.
IDMclean: Alright. Thanks Damien, I appreciate the conversation, and I look forward to future discussions. Have a goodnight.
Me: Always a pleasure, Ian. I hope i was clear enough to be helpful. Thanks for the great questions, and have a good night.
* Heh. Meant “Reign” —Ed.
IDMclean:I have to admit, I haven't spent much time looking at the universe from the magic perspective. In a very general sense, what is magic?
Me: VERY tricky question. Magic, as I use the term, can most succinctly be described as mechanisms for perceiving & affecting symbolic resonances, into the "physical" world. However, as OTHERS use the term, magic can range from "Principles of Sympathy & Contagion" (a thing which is like a thing/touches a thing can affect a thing), to "Very Useful Psychological Tools."
IDMclean: So magic's a method or process of actually becoming?
Me: I would agree to that, yes. In any of these theories, magic takes Ideas & turns them into Effects, by... Not the most "direct" but the most "meaningful-/useful-/understandable-"to-the-practitioner/community/intended-recipient-route.
IDMclean: Sympathy and Contagion is that like Cause and Effect or Construction and Deconstruction?
Me: Good question. In its initial form, the theory of Sym./Cont. was about cause & effect. W/ the right symbolic associations & the right actions, one can bring out of a Ritual an effect of similarity. I pour this water, say these words, UNDERSTAND the union of these actions in the "Correct" way... & it Rains.
Or: I get you to tell me how you see a door, or a window, or a clear path. What security, stability, & food mean, what tokens *click* w/ you, when you think of those. Then I arrange these things. I intone, or display, or burn them (for instance), & you come into some money. Or something. But Sym/Cont. is just a component to many, to be used in addition to other tools.
IDMclean: I understand magic in terms of the game Mage: the Ascension. It describes magic as a set or related concepts. In Mage, one has a paradigm, foci, spheres of influence, rotes, rituals, resonances, willpower, arete, essence & paradox. How would you distinguish magic from the trappings of foci and ritual?
Me: Well, 1st I would say that it doesn't necessarily have to Be distinguished. Some conceptions of magic require ritual, or rather the "trappings" (interesting word) of ritual lend a certain accretion of focus, will, intent, &/or belief to the proceedings, a concentration of symbolic resonance which an individual might otherwise be unable to maintain, on her own.
After that I'd say that any magic which DOES distinguish itself from ritual &c does so by increasing any of some other things: Intent or will of the practitioner; the depth or "strength" of the symbol being tapped; general background belief in potential, which is to say, a general belief that "Weird Shit" happens, thus, to a certain type of magic, making it more likely to happen.
IDMclean: Would you agree that the foci are for the benefit of the user and the effected world rather than necessary for magic's effects?
Me: Yes & no: Depends on the mindset of the user & the mindset of affected world. Doesn't mean that those who need it are "less," simply that certain perspectives, certain types of effects, are sometimes more easily attained w/ particular tool sets.
IDMclean: Alright, as the hours grow late, I would like to step back to a more general perspective. What are the general correspondences between technology and foci, magic and science? Do they agree, disagree, both, or neither? Or none of the above?
Me: From a particular perspective, Science & Magic necessarily overlap, because they're both human endeavors by which we try to understand &/or control the universe around us. Because of this, they'll have areas where they can speak to each other, but also areas where they Can't. Magic takes things like psychological states as "real;" They have an impact on magical effects & while they mayn't be Quant'ively measurable in many scientific systems, they're qual'ively important in many magical ones.
So, for instance, the usage of cybernetic theory-- reflexive systems of adaptive control-- has great potential for application in Magical practice. Understanding the mechanisms whereby a component assesses changes in its system/environ. & adapts to it can provide a magician w/ a conceptual framework for operating in various societal structures.
IDMclean: What kind of benefits could a working scientists gain from magic and magical principles if any?
Me: Well, the kinds of associative leaps required by many forms of magic are similar to those made in hypothesis formation, or even the state in which considered scientific data finally comes together as "Information." I could use the well-worn examples of the benzine ring, or DNA double-helix, but also consider many of Nikola Tesla's "Flashes," wherein he'd suddenly grasp concepts w/ which he'd previously struggled (& receive fully-formed applications thereof). Trances, associative rituals, lucid dreaming, thought-form (Tulpa) creation/manipulation. All of these could be used to approach hard data in novel ways.
IDMclean: What you're describing would seem to be abduction as Charles Sanders Peirce formulated it. Are you familiar with his work?
Me: I know of abductive reasoning, but unfortunately not the all of Pierce's work. It's similar to abduction, yes, but not so definite.
IDMclean: Arthur C. Clarke once infamously wrote "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Do you agree?
Me: I would agree, with the added corollary "Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." To open that up a little, one of the marks of magic is that, to the outside, it's seamless. The more we can see how it's done, the more it's just "Doing Stuff." But that's not necessarily "Bad." All magic IS "Doing Stuff." But all doing stuff is Magic.
IDMclean: Does magic have any limits, any hard boundaries? Also, how does magic differ from metaphysics?
Me: In a sense, the application of magical tech. is only limited by imagination & ability to find/convince others of correlations. If you find a way to alter the perceptions of large groups of people so as they believe that the sky turned green, thus proving that you're the reincarnation/return of Thor, and your 2,789 year rain* of blood begins w/ the shrieking of the wind, then there you are. As to the metaphysics question; in the philosophical sense, magic is more like Applied Metaphysics.
Instead of asking "What Exists & What Does that Existence Mean?" magic says, "Believe, for now, that X is the nature of things: Now what can we Do With It?"
IDMclean: Why does what we believe matter at all?
Me: That's a very intricate question w/ nothing like an agreed-upon answer. But it's not like anything I've said, tonight, is Canon. So look at it this way (then I should think about heading bedward): If everything we do starts as a thought, idea, or belief (and that can be seen as a BIG "If"), then what we believe is part of the causal chain of what we do and create. If true, then what we believe changes what we do, & to an extent it changes what we Can Do. The way we understand the world forms what I've referred to as "Invisible Architectures." Modes of thought, structures of unquestioned belief; unexamined because to examine them is like a fish asking "Why is water?" It's fundamental, forming the very fabric of what we do & what we are.
But we have the ability to investigate these architectures, to question the weave of what we do, & by doing so we're more able to change What we can Understand/Do & How we Understand/Do it. Magic is a tool for investigating this, one which itself requires-- to an extent-- a measure Of belief. What we believe matters because it shapes what we can think & what we can do.
IDMclean: Parting shot, how does your Invisible Architectures differ from paradigms?
Me: When humanity or a theoretical field enters into a paradigm, it can generally be seen, either in hindsight, or from the vantage .of a different field. As I see it (heh), Invisible Architectures form the stuff the paradigms are made of. On a human systemic level, they're Fundamental assumptions like "things exist," and "action occurs." Every so often, we bump up against the corners of our invisible architectures, & things are radically different. We can see things we couldn't. But I think the mechanisms of "paradigm shifts" & "discovering invisible architectures" are similar but different.
IDMclean: Alright. Thanks Damien, I appreciate the conversation, and I look forward to future discussions. Have a goodnight.
Me: Always a pleasure, Ian. I hope i was clear enough to be helpful. Thanks for the great questions, and have a good night.
* Heh. Meant “Reign” —Ed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-26 11:58 pm (UTC)Legend of the Five Rings had a weird "r{a/e}i{/g}n of blood" story arc for a while. I think they were playing off the idea that both concepts were present, but it was distracting.
Recent studies have found me struggling with the classical "seven deadly sins". More on that in a bit.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-27 12:10 am (UTC)I envy the tales of debauchery of other people, especially filled with a kind of longing in the fact that I feel "left out" or like I "missed out".
Some of the letters I've been reading about universal love have described the capacity to enjoy another person's achievements as if they were one's own, and vice versa. Not quite living vicariously, since that has the implication that oneself is held back from the activity. My intention is to fully enjoy my own experiences as well and hold them as equal to (neither greater- nor less-than) any other.
In one magical description, my envy manifests in my feeling and thereby generating a lack of what "the kool kids" have. And by extension, my enjoying what they have regardless of whether I did, to have the time of my life at that ridonkulous toga party at the mansion on New Year's Eve even though I happened to also be in Grant Park enjoying fondue with friends that night... that ends up making it more likely to manifest and getting an invitation for next year, since that's also part of who I am.
... and even if I don't, it's a nice thought and spreads happy feelings throughout my body. Nothing wrong with that.
Ooooh, I got one!
Date: 2011-05-06 08:15 pm (UTC)Envy can apply to all kinds of other places. Take the cake example. The most obvious one is being last in line and envying everyone else who gets cake. Or if I get it, I can later remember having cake and be envious of my past self (especially relevant given ex-mess). If the cake catches on fire, I can theorize a different timeline/reality where someone put the cake out first and I can be envious of my other self.
On the other hand, because of this fantastic "what if?" imagination, I am also able to imagine and enjoy the cake even if it isn't in my mouth at that second and might never be. So... no reason for envy, I'm still getting the enjoyment out of it. And for possible cake, it puts me more in the mode of observing myself actually receiving quantum cake.
Simple experiments seem promising, and I like being able to throw some of that junk in the trash. Will report on further observations.