49 replies to this topic

[Nathair]

deleted

Edited by Nathair, 24 September 2011 - 10:36 PM.

[calmoriah]

Nathair, on 24 September 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

Was this inappropriate?  If so I apologize and will delete it.  

I think it might be off topic since it is about historical conceptualizations and since this is the focused discussion forum...

Edited by calmoriah, 24 September 2011 - 10:31 PM.

[Brant Gardner]

Back to the topic. One of the biggest problems I see with the concepts associated with the word magic is that I am not at all sure that there can be any definition of magic that doesn't define it against something else. Is there a way to define magic that says what it is and which can differentiate it from religion?

For example, if I posit that magic is a human manipulation of extra-human forces, I am hard pressed to differentiate that definition from what happens in religion. I think that I might be able to find something that might differentiate magic and some modern religions, but I am less sure that I could do the same for historical versions of modern religions.

[volgadon]

Quote

Simon is a neutral figure, who converts to Christianity. He is condemned for trying to buy the priesthood, but not for being a magician.

I think that even in Acts there is some condemnation for his use of magic to present himself as the power of God, when that isn't he. At any rate, magic isn't the issue but the improper use of it is.

Edited by volgadon, 25 September 2011 - 02:38 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

volgadon, on 25 September 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I think that even in Acts there is some condemnation for his use of magic to present himself as the power of God, when that isn't he. At any rate, magic isn't the issue but the improper use of it is.

Your right.  But the text portrays him as a sincere believer, despite his magic.
Later traditions developing around Simon Magus, however, depict him as the father of heresy.

[Bill Hamblin]

Brant Gardner, on 25 September 2011 - 05:05 AM, said:

Back to the topic. One of the biggest problems I see with the concepts associated with the word magic is that I am not at all sure that there can be any definition of magic that doesn't define it against something else. Is there a way to define magic that says what it is and which can differentiate it from religion?

For example, if I posit that magic is a human manipulation of extra-human forces, I am hard pressed to differentiate that definition from what happens in religion. I think that I might be able to find something that might differentiate magic and some modern religions, but I am less sure that I could do the same for historical versions of modern religions.

I basically agree, which is why I find it pointless to try to talk about JS being a magician or believing in magic.  

The Renaissance Mage, for example, believed that the universe itself was "magical."  There was natural magic of the stars, plants, metals, etc., and spiritual magic, which involved the evocation of angelic or demonic beings to perform the will of the Mage.  Magicians could do either natural magic (manipulation of natural forces) or spiritual magic (conjuring spiritual beings--angelic or demonic), and achieve similar results. The Renaissance Magic did not define itself against anything.  It was simply a particular view of the universe, how it worked, and how men could use knowledge of these magical powers.  These natural or magical powers could be used for good or evil; the evocation of demons for evil purposes was eventually conceptualized as "black magic".  Most Renaissance Mages were, in fact, good believing Christians, like John Dee or Agrippa.  Christianity and Magic were not opposites, but were simply two different but overlapping bodies of knowledge and ritual of the natural and spiritual powers of the cosmos.  While one could be a Renaissance Christian without believing in magic, it was essentially impossible to be a Renaissance Mage without believing in God, angels, and demons.

Edited by Bill Hamblin, 25 September 2011 - 04:07 PM.

[volgadon]

Bill Hamblin, on 25 September 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Your right.  But the text portrays him as a sincere believer, despite his magic.
Later traditions developing around Simon Magus, however, depict him as the father of heresy.

Very true. I was refering to his pre-baptismal deeds. The later traditions present a very interesting picture of his miracles, but I do think they portray a far more negative character than Simon was.

[volgadon]

Quote

While one could be a Renaissance Christian without believing in magic, it was essentially impossible to be a Renaissance Mage without believing in God, angels, and demons.

On page 24 of vol. 1 of Buchan's 1828 "Ancient Ballads and Songs of the North of Scotland" there is a song entitled the Twa Magicians. One of the magicians raises his hand and swears by the mass.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that an objective distinction between magic and religion is useful. There are elements of religion that are almost never referred to as magic (such as faith), and there are magical practices that have nothing to do with religion, such as crossing one's fingers, or fearing that something will be "jinxed". So there must be some difference.

Sir James Frazer's proposed distinction, that religion requests while magic manipulates, is a good starting point, but I don't quite agree with that, because summoning the demons to place a hex on someone who has wronged you is a request, yet most of us would consider this to be a magical practice. Also, because many magical practices have a religious context, it seems like a mistake to define them in a way that is mutually exclusive. Magic and religion, it seems, should be partially-overlapping circles on a Venn diagram. I think that all magic has some supernatural connection between a physical act or state and the material world, whereas non-magical religion takes place in a world of symbols, where all connections to the material world are merely symbolic.

Therefore, I would give magic a fairly expansive definition of magic, to include all behaviors, rituals, states of being, and spoken words that are assumed to have some supernatural connection with the material world. Under this definition, no religion would be entirely magic, and almost all religions would have magic elements. Magic would include exorcisms, the Catholic Communion (because of transsubstantiation), faith healings, Mormon priesthood blessings, the miracles of Jesus, the Mormon temple garments (for those who believe they provide physical protection), speaking in tongues, prayers that God will manipulate the physical world, and the use of seer stones. On the other hand, the following religious elements would not be considered magic: faith, repentance, baptism (because the water is considered to be merely symbolic), the Mormon Endowment and sealing rituals, the temple garment (for those who believe they provide spiritual, but not physical, protection), the Protestant Eucharist, prayers of thanks, and the singing of hymns.

Edited by Cobalt-70, 27 September 2011 - 01:25 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Frazer's theories have been abandoned by current scholars for decades.  It simply doesn't fit the data.  

What one needs to do is examine each specific culture and tradition to understand magic in a given historical context.  All efforts to create a universal definition of magic which adequately defines ideas of magic all times and cultures have proven to be unsuccessful.

[Cobalt-70]

Bill Hamblin, on 28 September 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

Frazer's theories have been abandoned by current scholars for decades.  It simply doesn't fit the data.  

What one needs to do is examine each specific culture and tradition to understand magic in a given historical context.  All efforts to create a universal definition of magic which adequately defines ideas of magic all times and cultures have proven to be unsuccessful.

We're talking about a definition here, after all, and the only "data" we ought to be looking at is how the Western world understands the idea of magic. If you are trying to look at non-Western cultures on their own terms, we really have no business even using the term magic at all. It would be foolish to try to come up with a universal definition that is supposedly valid with respect to all cultures, languages, and religions. What I presented above is what I think best encapsulates Western ideas about the word magic. At the very least, we know (1) from any Western perspective, it is never precisely the same thing as religion, although magic is often a part of religion, and (2) magic involves supernatural connections to the material (as opposed to purely symbolic or spiritual) world. The difference (in Western thought) between magic and religion is not so subjective as to be undefined, except on a case-by-case basis.

[Nathair]

For what it's worth, Dion Fortune defined magic as "the art and science of causing change in consciousness in accordance with will."  (She is perhaps the most important Western magician of the past century.)
John Michael Greer has suggested that magic is to religion what engineering is to science.  He also has a discussion on magic and its relationship to both religion and science here.  

[Bill Hamblin]

Nathair, on 28 September 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

For what it's worth, Dion Fortune defined magic as "the art and science of causing change in consciousness in accordance with will."  (She is perhaps the most important Western magician of the past century.)
John Michael Greer has suggested that magic is to religion what engineering is to science.  He also has a discussion on magic and its relationship to both religion and science here.  

By Fortune's definition, are self-help gurus magicians?  If not, why not?

It is worth noting that many modern magical movements are really about changing human perceptions rather than engaging natural and spiritual magic of the world.  Magic allows you to see things differently, rather than changing reality.  The Renaissance Magus would agree in part, but would also believe that an amulet might really heal, or really cause a woman to love you.  That is, you don't just change consciousness; you change outward reality.

PS  I think Crowley was the most important figure in 20th century magic, but that's a different matter.

[Bill Hamblin]

Cobalt-70, on 28 September 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

What I presented above is what I think best encapsulates Western ideas about the word magic. At the very least, we know (1) from any Western perspective, it is never precisely the same thing as religion, although magic is often a part of religion, and (2) magic involves supernatural connections to the material (as opposed to purely symbolic or spiritual) world. The difference (in Western thought) between magic and religion is not so subjective as to be undefined, except on a case-by-case basis.

There is no unified theory or definition of magic that can account for the phenomena in the Western world either.  Concepts, beliefs and practices have varied widely in time and space in the West.  And, of course, Western magic has been transformed radically throughout its history by contact with other traditions (Arabic magic in the Ghayat al-Hakim/Picatrix in the 13C; Hermeticism in the 15th C; Resurrected Egyptian and East Asian ideas in the 19C, etc.)

You absolutely have to look each culture and period in its own unique historical context to make any sense of magic.

For the JS context, the problem is that no one has carefully studied JS writings and scripture for concepts of "magic."  To the extent that one does, it is universally negative.

[volgadon]

My wife's grandmother has a collection of handwritten spells, mainly from Central Ukraine. The spells began to be written down towards the end of the 19th c. Some are later, most are earlier. She is from a Cossack family, a very devout and militant Orthodox background. The spells draw on this religious background, using the Lord's Prayer, various psalms, crossing one's self, and saints, such as Mary, Mother of God, and St. Onuphrius. The latter is used for banishing roaches, which, if you've ever seen an icon of that saint, shouldn't come as a surprise.  The authors and users of these spells didn't see magic as something separate from their religion.

[Nathair]

Bill Hamblin, on 28 September 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

By Fortune's definition, are self-help gurus magicians?  If not, why not?

It is worth noting that many modern magical movements are really about changing human perceptions rather than engaging natural and spiritual magic of the world.  Magic allows you to see things differently, rather than changing reality.  The Renaissance Magus would agree in part, but would also believe that an amulet might really heal, or really cause a woman to love you.  That is, you don't just change consciousness; you change outward reality.

PS  I think Crowley was the most important figure in 20th century magic, but that's a different matter.

It's said that "every energy is an entity and every entity is an energy"  if that helps.

(Crowley was very skilled, but some of his work really squicks me out.)

[Bill Hamblin]

Nathair, on 28 September 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

(Crowley was very skilled, but some of his work really squicks me out.)

I agree Crowley was an absolutely wretched man (I'd call him a Satanist.)  I simply think he has been fore influential than Fortune.  In essence, Crowley founded his own religion, Thelema, revealed to him through Aiwass, a purported messenger of Horus in the Liber Legis = Book of the Law.  My point is simply that the Thelemite movement is more important among contemporary magicians than Fortune's ideas.

But we are getting off focus again.

Edited by Bill Hamblin, 28 September 2011 - 04:19 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Bill Hamblin, on 28 September 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

The Renaissance Magus would agree in part, but would also believe that an amulet might really heal, or really cause a woman to love you. That is, you don't just change consciousness; you change outward reality.

Uh oh.

Sounds like a mind/body problem to me!    

[Pa Pa]

Bill Hamblin, on 24 September 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

This discussion is getting off topic.  Let's try to stick to conceptualizations of magic and their significance for historical interpretation.  Speculations on the mechanisms of revelation of the text of the BOM can be taken to another thread.

Not a bad idea.

[ERayR]

Brant Gardner, on 24 September 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

I don't think he actually saw anything with either stone. However, Martin needed assurance and the Lord knew that. When Martin changed the stones, he was testing Joseph, but also the Lord's inspiration to Joseph (though he didn't understand that). I believe that the Lord simply didn't supply the vision to Joseph after the stone was switched. That made it so Joseph couldn't "see" and convinced Martin that Joseph was effective.

I both cases, the content was supplied to Joseph by the Lord. For details, see the book.

May I interject.  I think you are correct. as I remember there came a time when Joseph no longer used the stone to focus but instead received revelation directly.