Is the world "magical"?

[Dean]

Life, the cosmos, existence and such like ...

I pleasantly noted without comment that some people around here evoked or implied, if implicitly; a notion of "magic", hence I'm guessing "supernatural" - when discussing my idealistic proposition. Heartened by this and prompted by my views of Art, I raise this question to the Forum. How do you view the concept and definition of magic? Do you see it having the capacity to be sublimated into a credible view on the nature of things?

I appeal to the definition of magic as the the world being in conformance with the will. Additionally, Arthur C. Clarke proposed that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I see magic, appropriately defined, capable of expressing a wide scope and viable outlook. Is the world mind? Is it will, in its tranformative disposition? Do you find the metaphysics that the world should work as it does marvellous enough to be considered magical? Mind you, this doesn't imply that magic is necessarily whimsical as conventionally regarded, since there is no evidence in our world that that is the case.

I make a bold prediction: that the positivist view of the world too will become obsolete, like religious supernaturalism, and give way to some version of a magical appreciation of things. This notion will consist future religious views. At once, immanent and mystical. This is already anticipated in pantheism, but even there, many pantheists view the world along anthropomorphic lines.

What are your ideas on some form of magical conception about the world?

 

[Prolescum]

The primary question I have is... does it help if you redefine a word to mean whatever you want it to?

 

[Welshidiot]

Any sufficiently advanced magic could appear to be technology.

Ask Terry Pratchett if you don't believe me.

 

[Dean]

@Prolescum

The primary question I have is... does it help if you redefine a word to mean whatever you want it to?

One might well argue that it need not be called "magic", however, I would add that I am not so conventionally bound as to swallow everything a dictionary says. Language has mutable utility. I most definitely can conceive of 'magic' in naturalistic terms, with the supernaturalistic notion merely being a traditional attribute for me.

 

[Dean]

@Welshidiot

Any sufficiently advanced magic could appear to be technology.

Ask Terry Pratchett if you don't believe me.

One is tempted to say that the two work almost synonymously, in this matter. Bravo.

 

[Dean]

By re-reading the 3rd paragraph of my opening post - on positivism; I am reminded of this point; I don't consider a specialised consideration of magic needing be regression at all. Of course, to use it in today's circumstance would be dangerous, since it would be appropriated for all manners of fantastical claims about this world. As for my own philosophy of idealism, I cannot argue how else the world can be, taken to its logical conclusions.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Just no.

 

[Welshidiot]

Just no.

How do we know you aren't hiding doves in your top-hat at this very moment!?

 

[Dean]

Just no.

???

 

[Prolescum]

Any sufficiently advanced magic could appear to be technology.

Ask Terry Pratchett if you don't believe me.

Also, will is distilled into green power. Add to this the power of love (a kind of pinky-purple) and hey presto, the colour of magic!

@Prolescum

The primary question I have is... does it help if you redefine a word to mean whatever you want it to?

One might well argue that it need not be called "magic", however, I would add that I am not so conventionally bound as to swallow everything a dictionary says.

It's one thing for a term to evolve, it's another altogether to actively promote a completely divergent meaning upon said term.

Language has mutable utility. I most definitely can conceive of 'magic' in naturalistic terms, with the supernaturalistic notion merely being a traditional attribute for me.

Why not just redefine the universe as God, then? Makes it all nice and lemon-squeasy...

Just no.

How do we know you aren't hiding doves in your top-hat at this very moment!?

I think, but I could be mistaken, that DZ wears a Panama...

 

[Yfelsung]

Is the world magic?

Easy: nope.

The minute we prove the existence of the supernatural (if we do), it instantly becomes simply part of the natural.

 

[Welshidiot]

Just no.

How do we know you aren't hiding doves in your top-hat at this very moment!?

I think, but I could be mistaken, that DZ wears a Panama...

I see,....so you're saying the doves are probably freeze-dried?

 

[Dean]

Is the world magic?

Easy: nope.

The minute we prove the existence of the supernatural (if we do), it instantly becomes simply part of the natural.

This implies that the supernatural is unknowable by definition.

 

[Prolescum]

I see,....so you're saying the doves are probably freeze-dried?

I meant that Cockatiels were the more likely assistants.

 

[Yfelsung]

Is the world magic?

Easy: nope.

The minute we prove the existence of the supernatural (if we do), it instantly becomes simply part of the natural.

This implies that the supernatural is unknowable by definition.

Nothing is unknowable, so the definition is inherently flawed.

 

[Dean]

@Prolescum
No, I subscribe to no pantheism, or even panentheism; and this is NOT a "redefinition". This is a digression, but nonetheless, the word 'God' does not have a single, definitive meaning, and I would have thought that was obvious.

Here are some definitions of god that I hear from secular ideologues; and religious alike:

• Love
• The Universe
• The Soul
• Yoda [Star Wars]
• A future of neurologically interconnected humans
• Thor
• Zeus
• Horus
• Near-omnipotent aliens
• Super-force
• Superhumans
• Animist Spirits
• The Judaic Yaweh
• Catholic Yaweh
• Buddha

....Etcetera.

Just to refute this concept of yours that language is solid and should not waver. The same goes for atheism, a term which, although I fit into the camp of disbelief in Gods, I tend to ignore/avoid that term to describe myself for the simple reason that there are more definitions of that term [atheism], than you and others would perhaps like to think. But using your own example; no. The God concept can and HAS been edited and altered countless times throughout human history, and the same is true for other words. Language is not as fixed and transparent as you would like to believe...

And please don't affirm that your version of such terms is the accurate one. Definitions applying to specific words are not subject to "proof" and are only "true" by way of consensus. Saying that the definition that is true to you is "the" correct one is like saying that the only "proper" flavour of ice cream is chocolate. Inevitably, it becomes an argument from authority. I recommend reading up on prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistics.

 

[Dean]

Is the world magic?

Easy: nope.

The minute we prove the existence of the supernatural (if we do), it instantly becomes simply part of the natural.

This can be done. Your point has good pragmatic value, but in the end, a definion of magic is still pertinently and viably applicable.

Human mythopoeic nature as it is, I don't see the word 'magic' being phased out, and I can easily see it yet suggesting itself as a candidate term, in a specialised form. I won't deny it its semantic potential to adapt, just because it doesn't find mainstream appeal in the LoR community , for that is just a matter of taste.

 

[Prolescum]

Just to refute this concept of yours that language is solid and should not waver.

Just to refute this strawman of yours:

It's one thing for a term to evolve, it's another altogether to actively promote a completely divergent meaning upon said term.

 

[Dean]

@Prolescum

It's not even that they evolve. These conceptualities fluctuate wildly throughout the world, even at the same time , including today, it varies all over the place.

You're not getting it. There isn't a solid definition, or even a near-solid definition of anything. Just using the term 'gods', there are nearly countless definitions; depending on how you have been culturally environed. My point is that; to say that defining god as the universe is "re-defining", or deviating from the type of conceptuality of gods you understand here in western culture - is to assume that the definition of God that you use is "the" correct one, which is simply naivé, I am afraid. It is plain sense. Pantheists and especially Panentheists in cultures in societies where such notions of god are dominant - (as person-like gods are here in the west), they might just as well say: "So you're re-defining God to mean an actual intelligent entity rather than the universe??" and look at you as if you are crazy in your conception of God. This is the assumption that I intended to refute, and I have done so here. Do you dispute this..?

Actually, come to think of it in this way, this is actually an argument for atheism. It's the argument from cultural determinism. If all God concepts are simply relative to an individual's time, culture, and circumstance, then all God concepts are equal in their validity, and (arguably); equally vacuous. Fantastic! In fact; if there was universal agreement as to what counts as gods, that might be construed as circumstantial evidence for the truth of theism. For example, if the entire world was Christian; then that would at least be an indication, especially if there were no sects and divisions within it. This could of course be an ad populum fallacy. Like I said, even if there is consensus in the West as to what counts as God, it still isn't universally agreeable. So nothing is "re-defining" when it comes to God or gods. An astutely religious person could still see "God" - in whatever sense of that word you're using.... almost anywhere, as I have touched upon before.

I recommend this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Postmodernism happens to be one of my philosophies, as well as an imminent idealism, hence my allusions to a naturalistic conception of "magic" in the opening post. Perhaps not directly related to this discussion, however, I hear some implicit utterances of the notion of absolute truth here, and elsewhere. I don't believe in that either.

Come on Prolie, don't accuse me of logical fallacies. This is a textbook case of bad argumentation...

 

[DepricatedZero]

Just no.

How do we know you aren't hiding doves in your top-hat at this very moment!?

You can be fairly confident that neither my top-hat nor my panama are currently being used to house pigeons, doves, cockatiels, cockatrices, or rabbits. But what about hedgehogs?

Prolescum is making the argument I would. By definition magic is supernatural, and simply redefining the word is pointless. It's an attempt at intellectual dishonesty through intentional ambiguity - rather than properly describe what seems to amount to a deist view of a self-willed universe, he simply says its magic.

Further, he turns his back on academia to make his claims, stating that nothing has a solid or near-solid definition. I literally cannot have a discussion with him, because my words could mean anything he wants them to - language has no place in his world.

Dean: the above statements actually mean "Dude, Buffalo Wild Wings Spicy Garlic is awesome sauce. You should try it some time. I found god in the bottom of the bottle."