Gardner'S "Gift And Power" And The Definition Of Magic

[Bill Hamblin]

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 September 25, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

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]

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 September 27, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[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]

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]

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]

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/|\]

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]

(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 September 28, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

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!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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]

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.

[Brant Gardner]

Joseph received revelations through the seer stone early one. Later he did not. The descriptions of the process of receiving revelation (from the viewpoint of one watching the process) seem to describe something very similar - that Joseph dictate and not have to have notes read back, etc. There is no noticeable qualitative difference between revelations with and without the seer stone. I believe that there incidental to the actual process.

Now, returning to Bill's question of magic, is there any magical power in the seerstone? That is precisely where definitions cause us problems. There are some interesting studies that indicate that petting animals (and I believe the softer fur the better) can aid in reducing blood pressure. Is that magic? Is that coincidence? Is that science? One might imagine some past culture suggesting that long-haired cats had magical life-extending powers. Someone might come along and suggest that a cat is a cat and is not magical at all (many cat-owners probably disagree for their own reasons ). All of these are explanations and only as "right" as the worldview of the one using them as an explanation.

Magic is one of those terms that means too many things and has too many connotations. For many who discuss Joseph and seer stones, "magic" is the equivalent of "demonic." I would suggest that it is much closer to the "magic" healing properties of a long-haired cat. It is a way to explain something when you don't have a better explanation. Remember one of Arthur C. Clark's "rules": "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[ERayR]

Magic is one of those terms that means too many things and has too many connotations. For many who discuss Joseph and seer stones, "magic" is the equivalent of "demonic." I would suggest that it is much closer to the "magic" healing properties of a long-haired cat. It is a way to explain something when you don't have a better explanation. Remember one of Arthur C. Clark's "rules": "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Deleted not relevent

Edited November 7, 2011 by ERayR

[Nathair/|\]

Remember one of Arthur C. Clark's "rules": "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Hermetic magician John Michael Greer calls that "Clark's Fallacy" and says that "anyone who cannot distinguish technology from magic doesn't know very much about magic."

[Bill Hamblin]

Hermetic magician John Michael Greer calls that "Clark's Fallacy" and says that "anyone who cannot distinguish technology from magic doesn't know very much about magic."

Or technology. But I think that may be Clark's implicit point. If you don't understand a technology, or magic, they can appear to be indistinguishable.

[Nathair/|\]

This might be useful.

Yours under the magical oaks

Nathair /|\

[Stone holm]

I suppose that by definition God can do as he wills. However, the mechanisms for placing the information in the brain is already in place and requires less alteration of the temporal reality God has already defined.

Why would you suppose by definition that God can do as he wills? I had always assumed that God uses a greater understanding of natural laws coupled with the authority given Him by the Intelligences of which everything is composed to do whatever he does which is not the same as being able to do anything He wills. And I had always assumed that magic was merely the application of laws that were not commonly understood. Is this incorrect

[Brant Gardner]

Stone holm:

I accept that there are immutable eternal laws with which God is in accord--allowing for Him to be God. Nevertheless, that still opens lots of possibilities for how He might use those laws in the particular case of translating the plates. Out of all the possibilities available, why select that particular one? I think it is the most parsimonious. As you will notice, my preference for the way God worked (in this case and perhaps most of the time) is to follow both law and humanity. Parsimony.

As for magic, one can discuss how that should be defined in multiple ways. You appear to be suggesting that it is a real thing that results from sacred manipulation of the universe. That isn't the definition I would use. I think that it is socially defined and applied to situations where "we" would do things differently. As a crude contrast "I have religion, you have magic" is a typical social construction.

[canard78]

I don't believe there is any effective difference between the two things.

But, of course, the cumulative contemporary evidence seems to suggest that Joseph Smith experienced the latter rather than the former. My essential question is why many people seem to find it much more plausible and apparently easier to believe that God placed "revelations in someone's head," rather than placed "photons for the person to see as words." I think the question is especially pertinent given the cumulative contemporary evidence of the actual mechanics of the revelatory process involved not only in the translation of the Book of Mormon, but also in the majority of Joseph Smith's other revelations.

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on the question of whether or not the brother of Jared actually moved a mountain (or that he spoke and God caused a mountain to be moved--the two things are equivalent in my estimation).

There are two useful scriptural sources for the process of Joseph receiving God's word. Beyond that the other sources :

Intro to the Book of Commandments:

“These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-commandments-1833?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=9&s=undefined&sm=none

5...when you began to translate...

7...you have supposed that I would give it unto you

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.8?lang=eng

There's apparently little in the way of "magic" in the process of Joseph delivering scripture (either translated or revealed). It's quite clear that these are spiritual impressions in his own mind, dictated in his own words and in his own weakness. Much in the same way a patriach gives a patriarchal blessing or perhaps even a Priesthood blessing. Not some 'supernatural' or 'magical' process that requires 3-party inanimate objects to mutate and act unnaturally. Words appearing in Nephi/Joseph's mind (and perhaps vision) seems far more plausible than 600BC and 1820s inanimate objects behaving like 21st C technology.

The source suggesting a more supernatural process is from David Whitmer in 1887 (nearly 60 years after the event - at which point one might wonder about Whitmer's memory):

David Whitmer said when Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he "put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Seer_Stones_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

http://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit

Even if we grant Whitmer his memory, he still calls it a 'spiritual light.' Which could of course mean many things and may be quite different to literal visible light. Besides, given this is from the document that also denounces the "deluded souls in Utah," some might be putting a little too much weight on this account of the translation process and might be better to not be called "precious insights" into the translation process.

Interestingly, David Whitmer seemed comfortable with the notion of some kind of supernatural intervention, calling it a 'magic power.' So even if we need to remove magic from the process for our own emotional coping, his contemporaries seemed more comfortable with the idea that the process was magical:

“(Joseph)... was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/print/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng&clang=eng , from Chicago Times, 11 Aug. 1875 (assuming of course Whitmer said 'magic' and it wasn't attributed by the journalist!

[Nathair/|\]

This is as good a definition of the energy magicians use as any.

[volgadon]

Which could of course mean many things and may be quite different to literal visible light.[

It could, but it doesn't. It means a light only visible by the power of God. The same with "spiritual eyes."