Is magic natural?

[David19]

I just posted a thread called 'is magic for everyone' and it brought me to another point, do you think magic is 'natural', like a part of nature with nothing supernatural/mystical involved?. A lot of people do seem to believe that and while i can see some points in it, for me, i was reading this book, which talked about various forms of African witchcraft and magic, and it mentioned something about what magic, in African terms, was, which was 'a mystical energy that ran through everything, that could be used to harm or heal' (and probably a lot more than that), and to me, i think that's what magic is, i think it's in everyone, but i don't think magic can be 'proven', the ends can (like say, if you did some magic to just have sex, the end result of getting laid could be proven, or if you did a spell to make some money, and then you did, etc).

A lot of people, i've noticed, will always distance themselves from anything supernatural in case, IMO, people think they're 'evil', or whatever, but i think a supernatural realm (or realms) do exist.

I think, that while i see magic as being mystical, i do think that everyone (or at least most people) do have the potential in them (kind of like most people have the potential to be a great chef, football star, swimmer, dancer, etc), but some people can 'tap' into this mystical/supernatural power more than others.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but i hope it does :).

Anyway, what are your thoughts/beliefs/opinions about this?.

Thanks.

[Tanya]

Magic is as natural as flowers opening, the rain falling and my little girl's smile....

[Infinite Grey]

Both natural and unnatural... the concept of energies in everything is natural, but the bending it to one's will isn't natural... but that being said, unnatural does not = evil

[Celticscryer]

Both natural and unnatural... the concept of energies in everything is natural, but the bending it to one's will isn't natural... but that being said, unnatural does not = evil

Ditto. But I'll take it a step further and state that it's also a talent that few posess.

[ViolinGoddess]

I think that magick is natural. I think it's apart of the universe.

Violin Goddess

[Xentor]

Whether it's natural or not depends on the used definition of natural.

I'm an energy worker. For me, energy is in all living beings, thus inherent in nature. Manipulation of that energy thus can be seen as natural.

Others however have a far more limiting idea about what is natural, in which energy might be present, but where people aren't able to manipulate it using normal means.

[Calen]

Absolutely.

[mystic_zoe]

Both natural and unnatural... the concept of energies in everything is natural, but the bending it to one's will isn't natural... but that being said, unnatural does not = evil

i agree.
i think that it is natural in the sense that energy runs through everything and everyone but it is mystical in the sense of bending it to fulfil your will.

xx

[Lunacie]

i agree.
i think that it is natural in the sense that energy runs through everything and everyone but it is mystical in the sense of bending it to fulfil your will.

xx

I think that was rather well said and expresses the way I think of magic and the use of energies.

To change something physically requires that we eat and produce energy in our bodies. To change something magically requires that we tap into a different kind of energy.

[Lildelaide]

I agree with many of the members in saying that magic is natural. To me, magic occurs naturally in ourselves and the world around us. Since we are magical beings, the act of bending these forces to our will is something we can do by nature, making both the act and presence of magic natural in my opinion.

Blessed be!
~Lily

[Xirian]

Both natural and unnatural... the concept of energies in everything is natural, but the bending it to one's will isn't natural... but that being said, unnatural does not = evil
i agree.
i think that it is natural in the sense that energy runs through everything and everyone but it is mystical in the sense of bending it to fulfil your will.

xx

I think that was rather well said and expresses the way I think of magic and the use of energies.

To change something physically requires that we eat and produce energy in our bodies. To change something magically requires that we tap into a different kind of energy.

I tend to agree with all three of you. Well said.

[Philosophia]

I believe magic itself is natural. But how we use and manipulate it isn't natural.

[SSanf]

Most natural thing in the world!

[Semele]

Ditto. But I'll take it a step further and state that it's also a talent that few posess.

No moreso than excersising and physical fitness are talents some possess while others are lacking. Motivation and determination are skills we can all fine tune.

[Kalika]

I voted yes, because I've always thought of it as more natural than mystical... its a part of each person who uses it, to me at least, which makes it a natural thing.

[cydira]

If it wasn't natural, it would not exist with out humanity creating some form of device.

All forms of science are viewed as magic by those who do not understand them. Thus, to a cave man your flipping a light switch is on par with the lightning and is powerful magic. We understand that electricity behaves in a certian way because it is governed by natural laws (read physics). Thus... magic is natural.

We just can't functionally describe it in a fashion that is acceptable to the mainstream community at large.

[stella01904]

I voted "Other". Because the mystical IS natural, you can't separate them.

[Jadewynd~]

I believe magic is all around us and in general natural. But, there are all kinds of magic out there and depending how you work with magic it can be natural, mystical, etc.

[Cornflake_Girl8]

Everything is natural to the right person (given what "it" is).

[jcldragon]

Magick is part of the fabric of the Universe. The Universe is not merely the physical manefestation. The Material World could not exist without what lies underneath it. What is unnatural is the belief that the physical universe is all that there is. Even modern physics shows that matter is not solid as it appears, but instead is composed of fields of energies, structured by activity in higher dimensions.

[Cinder]

I agree with alot of whats been said so far and just have this to add:

What could be more natural than an individual utilizing their inherent abilities? "Magick" is simply a manipulation of energies via our will, which couldn't be more natural, imo.

It's interesting to me that all of the "great" Mystics I'm aware of spoke of the capabilities of each individual to attain the level of consciousness that they're admired for, yet so few actually heard them. Instead the Mystics were worshipped and treated as tho they are "above" the general masses, when they're messages have always been of encouragement for everyone to explore their own connections and abilities.

We're mulitfaceted beings comprised of the physical, spiritual and consciousness, each with their own challenges - all connected by energy to All.

Peace,
Cinder

[Rudas Starblaze]

its more then natural, its supernatural.

[Sequoia]

Whether it's natural or not depends on the used definition of natural.

I'm an energy worker. For me, energy is in all living beings, thus inherent in nature. Manipulation of that energy thus can be seen as natural.

Others however have a far more limiting idea about what is natural, in which energy might be present, but where people aren't able to manipulate it using normal means.

That's a great deal like what I believe. To me, "magic" (which I also include in the broader concept of prayer and meditation) is something that is more involved with touching the energies of the universe around us -- which I personally believe exists in both living and inanimate things. Though I'm not sure I consider anything to be totally and completely inanimate.

Heck, people like to argue that a ton of things aren't natural... but if you stop and think about it, every molecule, every bit of energy, exists in the natural universe. Nothing in existance is derived from nothingness - we've only got as much matter as we've got. So, in the end, it's all natural...

[Zibblsnrt]

Other - does it matter?

I believe very, very few things are "unnatural" (I don't disqualify nuclear reactors, for instance) - but even then, it doesn't really matter, unless you're the type to believe something is good strictly because it's "natural" and bad if it isn't, a view I profoundly don't hold.

[Xander67]

i believe it is natural, as it is subject to laws of nature and the universe...
it exists...

i feel that mystical is natural too... these are things that happen in the astral, or other realms of existance which are tied to our higher consciousness.. in this reguard, I dissagree with the statements that it is un-natural... if we are using our minds, doing the work in the physical, to communicate our desire to the divine mind, or astral, whatever you choose to call it.. you are still working with the forces of the universe which are bound to obey cosmic law...

I believe it is impossible for magic to be un natural..

In my Humble Opinion...

[Cynyr]

Ditto. But I'll take it a step further and state that it's also a talent that few posess.

Because the few believe in it and it is so.

[Astara Seague]

its very natural

[sweetfairy]

to me magic is very ancient and well alive
it flourishes everyday :)
..
things that have no understanding yet does not mean we can not learn from them.

[Xander67]

Amber K says in her book "true magic"

magic is bound to obey the laws of nature and the universe, when it appears to break those rules it is merely following laws we have not learned yet

[plumedsnake]

Nature refers to that which is Born. To be born from something else (or to be a product of something else) is what natural means. Also connected are the words Natal, like my natal town means the town I was born. and the word Native. ~A native is someone who is born in a place.

Nature does not just mean everything that exists. That's dumb! How could you have a supernatural or an unnatural in that case.

[Cynyr]

Nature refers to that which is Born. To be born from something else (or to be a product of something else) is what natural means. Also connected are the words Natal, like my natal town means the town I was born. and the word Native. ~A native is someone who is born in a place.

Nature does not just mean everything that exists. That's dumb! How could you have a supernatural or an unnatural in that case.

Dictionary.com will disagree with you - albeit more respectfully.

Nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nature&x=24&y=18)

Natural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural&x=20&y=17)

Supernatural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural&x=18&y=13)

Supernatural does NOT mean it is NOT natural but rather BEYOND natural, or unexplainable by nature. Hence the prefix 'super' meaning 'beyond' or 'superior quality' or 'highest degree' or 'excessive'.

No need to over intellectualize stuff.

[David19]

Dictionary.com will disagree with you - albeit more respectfully.

Nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nature&x=24&y=18)

Natural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural&x=20&y=17)

Supernatural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural&x=18&y=13)

Supernatural does NOT mean it is NOT natural but rather BEYOND natural, or unexplainable by nature. Hence the prefix 'super' meaning 'beyond' or 'superior quality' or 'highest degree' or 'excessive'.

No need to over intellectualize stuff.

I like that definition of supernatural :).

[Zibblsnrt]

Supernatural does NOT mean it is NOT natural but rather BEYOND natural, or unexplainable by nature. Hence the prefix 'super' meaning 'beyond' or 'superior quality' or 'highest degree' or 'excessive'

One also needs to keep in mind that "unexplained" and "inexplicable" are two very different things.

[Cynyr]

One also needs to keep in mind that "unexplained" and "inexplicable" are two very different things.

Unexplained - Not explained.

Inexplicable - Cannot be explained or impossible to explain.

Different, but not 'very different'.

Very - exceeding, extremely.

[Darakash]

Both natural and unnatural... the concept of energies in everything is natural, but the bending it to one's will isn't natural... but that being said, unnatural does not = evil

When i first read this, I totally agreed with you...then, I thought about it a bit, and realized something:

The use of energy, for instance to create heat or to do "work" is natural, is it not? Energy is either "potential" or "kinetic" Isn't it part of the natural order to turn "potential" energy into kinetic energy? And how else is this done than by some form of manipulation. Changing the state of energy is something we do everyday in "natural" ways...so, how is changing it via our will any different really?

[Xentor]

Nature does not just mean everything that exists. That's dumb! How could you have a supernatural or an unnatural in that case.

How is it that you limit "being born of something" to animals and plants only?

Would water be natural? What birthed it, then? Would it be unnatural then? Or supernatural?

Is this planet natural? Pray tell, out of what was it born?

Maybe that's enough to understand those of us who think that everything that exists is natural.

Oh, and calling those of us who believe this, and thus disagree with your point of view, "dumb", doesn't look like abiding by our respect rule at all.

[Zibblsnrt]

Unexplained - Not explained.

Inexplicable - Cannot be explained or impossible to explain.

Different, but not 'very different'.

Very - exceeding, extremely.

Thanks; I can in fact read. I'm just commenting on the fairly common tendency to believe "unexplained" and "inexplicable" are synonymous.

In any case, the difference between the two is too big to disregard out of hand. The tendency to think, "I do not understand this, therefore nobody else does and it cannot be understood" is annoyingly common lately.

[plumedsnake]

How is it that you limit "being born of something" to animals and plants only?

Would water be natural? What birthed it, then? Would it be unnatural then? Or supernatural?

Is this planet natural? Pray tell, out of what was it born?

Maybe that's enough to understand those of us who think that everything that exists is natural.

Oh, and calling those of us who believe this, and thus disagree with your point of view, "dumb", doesn't look like abiding by our respect rule at all.


first and foremost, I never called anyone dumb.

SEcondly, that dictionary.com is wrong. There is a an etymological origin of the word natural. Check http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It says Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born

Thirdly, I have not limited nature to plants and animals only. Everything (almost) comes from something. The world is full of events, and every event is born of a preceding event.
Yes, the event in history called the life of plumedsnake is preceded by it's source another event ie: the life of a woman called 'mother of plumedsnake'.

Yes this planet is natural, and I will pray tell you that it was born of that blazing ball of gas called the Sun.

Natural philosophers are those who try to understand the process of nature, how one event unfolds to yield new events. The idea that everything is connected in a web of cause and effect is the back bone of Nature.

Yes the idea that Nature is just everything is dumb when we all know full well that those who made the distinction between nature and supernature were not referring to supernature as something that didn't exist or was outside of the human experience. I honestly don't get what seems to me to be a willful desire to ignore what they are getting at.

[plumedsnake]

Dictionary.com will disagree with you - albeit more respectfully.

Nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nature&x=24&y=18)

Natural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural&x=20&y=17)

Supernatural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural&x=18&y=13)

Supernatural does NOT mean it is NOT natural but rather BEYOND natural, or unexplainable by nature. Hence the prefix 'super' meaning 'beyond' or 'superior quality' or 'highest degree' or 'excessive'.

No need to over intellectualize stuff.


Yes super does mean beyond/above/ or Over. I don't think that I am over intellectualizing; no! I have simply thought about what I said. Surely that can't be a bad thing, Thinking about what you are saying!!

However if it is, I shall refrain from doing so whenever I engage you in any conversation.

[cydira]

I believe the term "supernatural" is a result of a translation of Aristotle's work Metaphysics.

The word metaphysics translates roughly to "beyond physics". Like the word supernatural can be broken into it's component terms super (above/beyond) natural. In the case of Asistotle's Metaphysics, this title was used because it was a continuation of the work he wrote titled Physics.

The ancient Greek philosophers used the term physics to refer to the study of the natural world. When you look at Aristotle's works, you find that his work Physics discusses the natural world and his work Metaphysics discusses the cosmology and the "prime" matter of the world. You compare this discussion to what's currently discussed in the sciences and you can logically see the development of sub-atomic physics in the ideas presented in Metaphysics and contemporary works.

This little history lesson is related to this discussion by more then just a bit of theorizing about the word supernatural. I believe that the esoteric arts that we engage in via magic, prayer and other spiritual practices is a form of manipulating the world in a fashion that currently is only explained by theory. I do not believe that this makes it any less natural.

In the strictest sense, natural refers to items coming from nature. Most often, it is used to refer to non-manufactured products. Thus, the branch of a tree is natural and a planed and sanded board is not. In this discussion, however, I think we can safely broaden the definition of natural to occuring in nature. Now, some one may say that I am merely restating myself.

What I am saying in stating "occuring in nature" is that if an object is real, can be created, or otherwise occur in nature, it can qualify as natural. Thus, the skyscraper that is in the nearest city is just as natural as the tree growing in my neighbor's yard. Why do I feel this is a valid use of the term? Because all things that exist are made of energy and matter that is the very fabric of our universe. All interactions of this energy and matter occur within our universe and can be held as natural, because they are a part of our universe.

And I'm using the term universe with in the cosmological sense of pertaining to the whole of existance and reality. Now, in the context that I've presented, I believe that we can say that magic and other esoteric arts are clearly natural. They are as natural as sub-atomic decay, quasars, and the Heisenberg Uncertianty principle. I think that the processes by which they function are not understood and as such we're uncomfortable with viewing them as natural.

Much like how Albert Einstein felt when Werner Heisenberg presented his ground breaking Uncertianty principle. Einstein utterly rejected sub-atomic physics for many reasons, this was probably the one that he was most opposed to. He called it "spooky actions at a distance." In that statement, I see the description of magic by the world at large, as well.

[Hahahaha]

lol, magic

[Xentor]

lol, magic

Infraction given. Discussion is possible in the Infractions forum.

[eldora_avalon]

Nature refers to that which is Born. To be born from something else (or to be a product of something else) is what natural means. Also connected are the words Natal, like my natal town means the town I was born. and the word Native. ~A native is someone who is born in a place.

Nature does not just mean everything that exists. That's dumb! How could you have a supernatural or an unnatural in that case.

How is it that you limit "being born of something" to animals and plants only?

Would water be natural? What birthed it, then? Would it be unnatural then? Or supernatural?

Is this planet natural? Pray tell, out of what was it born?

Maybe that's enough to understand those of us who think that everything that exists is natural.

Oh, and calling those of us who believe this, and thus disagree with your point of view, "dumb", doesn't look like abiding by our respect rule at all.
Not so sure I like this being born equals natural thing, but I'll play devil's advocate for just a second.

Water was birthed by supernovas and other smaller events of the universe, which I don't feel like looking up, but I can if you all want me to.

The planet was born out of the same events as the solar system, so you might be able to say that the solar system birthed the planet. Or even that the universe birthed the whole thing.

And to plumedsnake, when you call an idea dumb, especially after a bunch of people have expressed that idea, you are calling those people dumb, whether that was your intention or not. I would use the tsk, tsk smilie, but hesh always looks like the fingers are flipping someone off :cheers:

[Cynyr]

lol, magic

To cause change in accordance with the Will is something I'm sure you do all the time. You can even call it, loosely, Witchcraft! We all do it; just like the 80s song, "You can do magic; you can have anything that you desire..."

Not only believe it, but know it. Here's to Hahahaha's magickal development.
:cheers:

[eldora_avalon]

Wow, I finally got through this whole thread. Lots of great ideas everyone.

I voted other, because I do not see mystical things and natural things as being separate.

When I do a spell, or meditate on something, I can feel a certain vibe in the air. What that is, I don't know. To me it is natural. To someone else, it might totally freak them out. I do know that when I try to explain some things to some people they really have no clue what I am talking about and take what I say to mean something that makes sense to their framwork of reality. The idea gets distorted until it means nothing of what I origianlly meant.

I think that like a lot of other talents practice makes one better at it. That's why the yogi's and other such people can do such tremendous feats that seem impossible to most the rest of us.

In China, they call energy Chi and view the manipulation of it as natural. It is manipulated in health care and the martial arts and in excersize.

Within Christian culture prayer and meditation cause miracles to happen, they do not think this is 'unnatural.'

Within physics, looking at atoms and photons, strange things happen. If you take two very straight edges and put them very close together and shine a light through, you get a wave pattern on the other side. You can try this with your fingers, put them close together and look through them. As they get closer the light distorts in a predictable way. You can get this same pattern by emitting electrons instead of photons onto a screen. The tricky part is you get the same pattern even if you only emit one electron. Sounds magical, but it is physics.

More and more of what I read shows the mystics and scientists meeting out back after they split from each other, at least in Western culture. (How many centuries ago was that?) In some cultures they never split off from one another. So it is all natural in some sense, all mystical in some sense, etc. I will spare you all the typical roundy round of Discordian jargon. Today. Tomorrow, well that's another story.:cheers:

[plumedsnake]

I believe the term "supernatural" is a result of a translation of Aristotle's work Metaphysics..

Right, that's interesting. So someone translated Aristotle who wrote in ancient greek (I'm not a greek scholar, but if I was I'd love to check what the original word he used in greek was). It was probably translated in to Arabic and then from arabic translated into Latin or maybe Italian. Whatever word ARistotle used it was translated into latin with a word meaning to be born. Does anyone agree with that, that Nature in Latin means to be born of . . .? Because If no one agree with that fact then there is no point in my carrying on.

Now, if nature just meant everything that occurs, then ARistotle must have been mad or dumb or something to make a distinction between Everything that exists and what is beyond everything that exists, ie nothing. I once went on a trip where I was developing a concept about the interaction between existence and non-existence. ~Almost everyone I spoke to said that I was talking crap. Anyway, I not saying anyone here is talking crap, but if we are discussing whether magic is natural in the sense that do the forces of magic exist in the universe, or are they based on non-existent forces then it's like a pointless question. of course magic uses principles that exist so therefore in this framework are natural. It makes the whole discussion kinda ridiculous.



The ancient Greek philosophers used the term physics to refer to the study of the natural world. When you look at Aristotle's works, you find that his work Physics discusses the natural world and his work Metaphysics discusses the cosmology and the "prime" matter of the world. You compare this discussion to what's currently discussed in the sciences and you can logically see the development of sub-atomic physics in the ideas presented in Metaphysics and contemporary works..

You're gonna have to give more detail about the parallels between subatomic physics and aRistotles metaphysics. As it stands the above is a bit of a sweeping statement.



This little history lesson is related to this discussion by more then just a bit of theorizing about the word supernatural. I believe that the esoteric arts that we engage in via magic, prayer and other spiritual practices is a form of manipulating the world in a fashion that currently is only explained by theory. I do not believe that this makes it any less natural.

this is a very crucial and important point you are alluding too. If something works contrary to your understanding of natural laws then you'll just say that it's because you do not fully understand the natural laws yet. In that case the supernatural does not stand a chance. It sounds like one of those victorian rationalist that would say in a horror movie,'there's got to be a rational explanation'. I would rather say, if something occured that was beyond my understanding of the natural world, that the jury was out. It could be supernatural or it could be a natural phenomenon that I don't understand. However to come down so strongly on the side of it's got to be natural suggests that there are other processes at work in your reasoning that lends a bias to the Natural. I don't know what that would be, but it seems that there is a bias. But I suppose if Natural was all that exists then it could only be natural, supernaturally. Or maybe the supernatural is just natural and the unnatural natural too and everything is everything and nothing is everything and chaos is order and bollocks rules. . . .



In the strictest sense, natural refers to items coming from nature. ..

How Obvious is that!!!! Natural is the an adjective derived from nature_wedgie_


Most often, it is used to refer to non-manufactured products. Thus, the branch of a tree is natural and a planed and sanded board is not. In this discussion, however, I think we can safely broaden the definition of natural to occuring in nature. Now, some one may say that I am merely restating myself.

What I am saying in stating "occuring in nature" is that if an object is real, can be created, or otherwise occur in nature, it can qualify as natural. ..

If nature just meant everything then yes I would agree with you.


Thus, the skyscraper that is in the nearest city is just as natural as the tree growing in my neighbor's yard. Why do I feel this is a valid use of the term? Because all things that exist are made of energy and matter that is the very fabric of our universe. All interactions of this energy and matter occur within our universe and can be held as natural, because they are a part of our universe..

And here is where I think our failure to understand each other lies. I could be wrong but I think that you see nature in terms of the substance of which the world is made, ie energy and matter. And so long as everything is made of energy and matter then everything is natural. I understand nature to be the PROCESS by which the various forms of energy and matter interact and influence each other. I see Nature as a Process and you see it as a substance or substances.

As an aside, this kinda has parallels to the argument of whether the 4 elements are substances from which the world is made or whether they are processes or stages in transmutation, ie air to fire to earth to water to air again.

I think I ought to one more time try to explain what I mean by nature in light of understanding what you are saying and where our differences lie. (I only just realised this as I was writing). I believe that nature is a dynamic process whereby each event is preceded by a prior event which serves as it's cause and each event will then go on to serve as the cause of subsequent events. Therefore the universe is full of events that are linked together in a chain of Cause and effect. The laws that guide interaction of events is what I call nature. In Vedic philosophy it is called Karma. Every natural event is born of a previous event. The field in which these interaction occur in called Time. Natural philosophy has always been about dynamics, if such and such is the case then what is the prognosis, where does this lead to, and what were the causes, where did it come from. Isaac Newton went so far as to analysis the dynamics of change using differential equations and other scientists contributed to his work. As the alchemist's said, take this and take that and you'll get this and that. Now the process of Nature occurs in Time, but that is not the totality of existence. Human beings, (and maybe other creatures too) have a faculty that is free from the the process of time. Most of our thoughts and our actions are part of the time bound natural karmic process. ie. 'I did that because he went there, and I said this because she said that first. if she hadn't said that then I wouldn't have said this'. We are bound in the chain of events. Yet there is a faculty in us (or of us) that is not so time bound. It's action is spontaneous, not a reaction to circumstance. There are no whys or wherefores or becauses buttressing why this supernatural faculty in man acts. IN this faculty is what we call the Will, the true will or the Free will. Whereas in nature we are bound to fate or circumstances. Through this supernatural faculty we can break the bonds of Karma . . . .


And I'm using the term universe with in the cosmological sense of pertaining to the whole of existance and reality. Now, in the context that I've presented, I believe that we can say that magic and other esoteric arts are clearly natural. They are as natural as sub-atomic decay, quasars, and the Heisenberg Uncertianty principle. I think that the processes by which they function are not understood and as such we're uncomfortable with viewing them as natural.

exactly! And I don't see nature as the whole of existence and reality. Otherwise, why make a distinction between nature and supernature.




Much like how Albert Einstein felt when Werner Heisenberg presented his ground breaking Uncertianty principle. Einstein utterly rejected sub-atomic physics for many reasons, this was probably the one that he was most opposed to. He called it "spooky actions at a distance." In that statement, I see the description of magic by the world at large, as well.

I would take the same facts and use it to argue the total opposite. You can say because phenomena such as heisenberg's uncertainty principle do not fit into natural laws or process as we know it that it must mean that we do not understand the natural laws by which it operates. I on the other hand would say that it proves that not all phenomena operate within the bounds of natural processes. In heisenberg's principle subatomic particles appear out of nowhere. They are UNBORN. They are spontaneous occurences. Whether they turn up or not is not a matter of a mechanical process but rather a probability, a roll of the dice. That's in fact what einstein said, that he didn't believe that God played dice with the universe. Well, I argue that he does. Not every phenomenon occurs by the rules of natural processes. Things do occur that are unborn by any previous event. nothing leads up to them.
It also occurs in the mind. Most thoughts follow each other in patterns, some things triggers a pattern and off we go following a nature bound thought pattern and behaviour. However we can stop this process and when we learn to stop the thinking process then we can become more spontaneous in thought and action and basically more supernatural!

Dig?

[cydira]

# 1: Plumedsnake, you're awesome because you saw the joke buried in my ramblings! 8O

# 2: You said


You're gonna have to give more detail about the parallels between subatomic physics and Aristotles metaphysics. As it stands the above is a bit of a sweeping statement.


It does sound a bit broad when you look at it initially. It's actually something you can see in the development of "natural" philosophy.

The concept of atoms began at roughly the same period of time that Aristotle was developing his work Metaphysics. The ancient Greeks and other ancient philosophers were faced with the question: what is the smallest part something can be cut into?

That turned into: what are things made of?

Then you had people touting the ideas of atoms, prime matter, the classical Elements, and simmilar concepts. This was continued until the fall of Rome and many of the intellectual discussions about these two questions got thrust aside by the immediate problems of the era. After things became a bit settled, there was the Medieval thinkers attempting to tackle these questions. They were heavily influenced by Aristotle (ala Thomas Acquinas, I think).

At the same time, Western Europe became reintroduced to the ideas of the classical philosophers via the Arab state in Spain and simmilar holdings in what formerly was the Byzantium. This, combined with the heavily repressed mystic practices of the Jews and the half-forgotten practices of the pre-Christian era, resulted in the rise of alchemy. From alchemy and the development of secular philosophy in Western Europe came the modern sciences.

The subtle influence of the early Greeks became quickly apparent in Physics, as can be seen in the way that logistical proof is required of virtually everything from day one of that dicipline. The last vestiges of alchemy can be seen in Physics by the use of the experimental process, equipment names, and symbology for formulae. Many people want to say that the theories of Modern Physics are derived from Asian philosophy, but it's not actually the case.

The Asian philosophies pointed to as the origins of the concepts of Modern Physics didn't really become apparent within Western Europe until after the development of the dicipline of Physics. By that time, the division between philosophy and the "hard" sciences had already became quite large.The efforts by some well intentioned scientists to bridge that was quickly laughed at or decried, with "hard" science being viewed as more fashionable then philosophy by the intelligencia of the 16-18th century.

The interest in the Asian philosophies (such as Taoism, which is argued to be the source of a very large percentage of Modern Physics) was primarially focused in the individuals who had anthropological interests. Thus, many of the people focusing on the theoretical elements of what existance was made of simply didn't have access to those concepts. Even so, I suspect that they would have been dismissed out of hand due to the religious overtones at that point in time, especially for their non-European quality. It was a bias that was rather rampant of the time. And then, during the early 19th century, as these philosophies became more accessable, they had acquired the "stigma" of being religious texts.

At that point in time, the division between philosophy, religion, and the sciences was all but permanently fixed. Thus, when the theories of Modern Physics were announced, the only philosophical roots they could have were in:

1. Greco-Roman thought
2. Medieval Arabic thought
3. Medieval Jewish mysticism
4. Medieval Christianity
5. Medival and Renaissance occultism (including everything from Mesmer's work to the work of the Freemasons)

However, as the division between the sciences and these other more spiritual or religious/mystic diciplines of thought developed, the sciences retained their holds upon the classical philosophy that didn't have overtly religious overtones, like the atoms.

[takes a breath]

Whew... and I bet you didn't think I could summarize the rise of modern physics in just one post. :)

[cydira]

I would take the same facts and use it to argue the total opposite. You can say because phenomena such as heisenberg's uncertainty principle do not fit into natural laws or process as we know it that it must mean that we do not understand the natural laws by which it operates. I on the other hand would say that it proves that not all phenomena operate within the bounds of natural processes. In heisenberg's principle subatomic particles appear out of nowhere. They are UNBORN. They are spontaneous occurences. Whether they turn up or not is not a matter of a mechanical process but rather a probability, a roll of the dice. That's in fact what einstein said, that he didn't believe that God played dice with the universe. Well, I argue that he does. Not every phenomenon occurs by the rules of natural processes. Things do occur that are unborn by any previous event. nothing leads up to them.
It also occurs in the mind. Most thoughts follow each other in patterns, some things triggers a pattern and off we go following a nature bound thought pattern and behaviour. However we can stop this process and when we learn to stop the thinking process then we can become more spontaneous in thought and action and basically more supernatural!

Dig?

As you are approaching this from a different perspective, I can see the point you're making. :) Excellently done.

Isn't it interesting how the same evidence can be used to support two drastically different perspectives?

[wolf]

Definitely natural, as energy is part of all things. Not everyone possesses the awareness of these energies, and of those who can, not everyone is capable of manipulating the forces invovled.

I don't think that there is much that's actually 'super'natural.

[Hahahaha]

Infraction given. Discussion is possible in the Infractions forum.

Liar.

[Ninjakitten]

I think that "magic" as an energy is actually a natural energy that is a part of Creation that we haven't yet been able to quantify with the five scientifically proven senses. Electricity used to be the same in that there were explanations like lightening was caused by dragons and such. We consider it mystical because we don't have a scientific means of explaining it yet, nor do we have a better philosophy (except, arguably, various religions that are at times more flawed then science) to explain the wonders of the Natural World (ie, Creation). Then again, I'm also a Christian, a witch, and a scientist, and this is how, on a basic level, I blend my beliefs. They are prone to evolving as many other of my beliefs as I see evidence to the contrary.

[~*Woodrose*~]

i think magic is natural
just look at healing

though it might also be a bit of talent too
as one of my other pagan friends cant get some magic spells to work for her

luv woodrose:abanana:

[Hahahaha]

Magic? Dude. Magic is Disney. Now, if it's Mahdgickqual Kraffs that you're asking about... That's some real stuff. Ver' natural.

[enchancea]

I say a little bit of both

[maphdet]

I voted other.

Interesting and well thought out
posts in this thread here.


I think channeling energy is a science.
(like channeling electricity/energy through a cable)

Is science natural?

I also think that nothing is certain,
and anything is possible.

[9-2-2]

Magick just is.

I'm not sure why we need so many boxes to put it in.
Cups work better. :-P

[Lunacie]

Magick just is.

I'm not sure why we need so many boxes to put it in.
Cups work better. :-P

Uh huh, yeah, got that right. :lol:



Hey, where's the cheese?

[CleftOfLight]

yes very natural

I believe it was more commonly used in the early stages of Humanity,but for one reason or another humanity rebeled and most,not all,stopped using magick and lost there ability to use.

[Lunacie]

Rebelled against what?

I would think it more likely that someone wanted to have more control over others and denied them the use of magic by telling them that it was evil.

[covenofkeys]

rebelled because of things they couldnt understand and were afraid of,or ignorant to these things. people have always had the ability,
but over time we forget. 10 percent of the 'normal' human brain is active during any one time. we used more of our brain a long time ago in history, but you can reawaken certain parts of the brain, therefore using more of its capabilities. magic is both natural and un-natural.

[ladyraven]

Magic is natural, it's just most forgot how to use it or were never edecated in it, so there fore don't know it really exists and that makes it seem un-natural.

[covenofkeys]

i agree with peacock on this...natural up until the point wher personal will changes it, then it becomes un-natural...and to hahahaha do not presume to know what you clearly do not. you too have the ability - you have just forgotten like so many, but the areas that have been forgotten in the brain, can be re awakened.
we are all entitled to opinions,but to blatantly call someone a liar is offensive and in this case also a little ignorant.

[covenofkeys]

i like that,- someone who posts something like that then runs for the exit. hahahaha has definately shown true strength in convictions here.

[cydira]

I believe it was more commonly used in the early stages of Humanity,but for one reason or another humanity rebeled and most,not all,stopped using magick and lost there ability to use.

I've been thinking about what you posted and I need you to tell me if I'm correct in my thinking here.

Are you saying that magic is an innate talent of all humans?

-OR-

Are you saying that magic is an attribute that was once part of the human make up (like the ability to speak or use opposible thumbs) and as a result of evolutionary changes, this attribute has become genetic recessive?

-OR-

Are you saying that magic is an attribute that was once a prominant part of the human make up and as a result of evolutionary changes this attribute has diminished (like the appendice)?

As for the rebelled statement: what would the majority of an entire species rebel against?

I'm quite confused by what you posted. Could you please clarify it for me.

Thanks!

[covenofkeys]

the reason for this i have already tried to explain on the previous page, i think.

[Mesektet]

Since coming to understanding it, and only in the most meager of ways, I have found it to be as natural as breathing, but even we need help with that sometimes.

[Johnathan Brisby]

"magic" is simply enhancing the normal tendency of something

[phoenix9]

It is highly dependent on your definition of "nature"...

I would say magic, if it exists (still skeptic .. sorry), is within my definition of "natural"

[CoyoteShadow]

rebelled because of things they couldnt understand and were afraid of,or ignorant to these things. people have always had the ability,
but over time we forget. 10 percent of the 'normal' human brain is active during any one time. we used more of our brain a long time ago in history, but you can reawaken certain parts of the brain, therefore using more of its capabilities. magic is both natural and un-natural.

Just for a heads up, the 10 percent bit is a myth (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html).

B.B.

[Dio]

There is no differentiation between 'mystical' and 'natural' when speaking of magic. So, to choose one or the other would be pointless. The mystical and supernatural aspects of life are just as natural as a tree growing in the woods. Thought processes and dreams are completely intangible concepts though we all accept them as natural because we all experience them for ourselves. Many people experience the the mystical in the same way. Why would it not also be considered natural?

[CleftOfLight]

I've been thinking about what you posted and I need you to tell me if I'm correct in my thinking here.

Are you saying that magic is an innate talent of all humans?

-OR-

Are you saying that magic is an attribute that was once part of the human make up (like the ability to speak or use opposible thumbs) and as a result of evolutionary changes, this attribute has become genetic recessive?

-OR-

Are you saying that magic is an attribute that was once a prominant part of the human make up and as a result of evolutionary changes this attribute has diminished (like the appendice)?

As for the rebelled statement: what would the majority of an entire species rebel against?

I'm quite confused by what you posted. Could you please clarify it for me.

Thanks!

Sorry it too so long for e to answer been off the comp for a while.

I am saying that magick is an innate ability of all humans that most humans don't use because they are never taught or wanted to use.

The reason I said rebel is because most changes come from some sort of revalution.For instance the Romans spoke Latin.They made great advances in medicine among many other things.When Rome was rebelled against and fell,all those who over threw rome banned latin.Thus slowly forgetting all the Wisdom of the Romans.It has been said that because of this humans took a few 1000 year set back.

What if that happend with magick.Lets say everyone used magick then a generation of children are born who don't like the ways of there parents.So they (believing they know a better way,or seeing a lot of things they didn't like) refused to learn,or stopped teacging it to future generations.

I came to this conclusion by reading all kinds of myths.Everything from Egyption,Sumerian,Indian,etc,etc.And I found it odd how many ancient myths had tons of magick,then all of a sudden stop and start to use other things to describe what was ounce before magick.

Of course this is my own opinion.

I can't believe people are calling other peoples opinions ignorant.

But I never thought on the evolutionary scale like you have suggested.That too could be a possibility,but I wasn't thinking that at that moment.

Also people may have rebelled against magickal beings and creatures.Maybe they felt that the magickal creatures or beings were enslaving them or interfering too much in there affairs.

well I hope I made sense and shed some light on my bit of insanity...lol.

[Silver Crow2]

I am saying that magick is an innate ability of all humans that most humans don't use because they are never taught or wanted to use.

I agree. I think some have more innate ability than others; and some practice more than others. Just like baseball or tiddlywinks.

I am not a Strega(allian?) and not of southern European descent at all, however if I understand the creation myth contained in the original documentation that survived in that tradition - well it reads pretty much like the Big Bang to me.

If it is true, and everything in the universe can be thought of as energy slowing down to various vibrational levels - and modern physics and chemistry does tell us that everything we experience on the material plane has a vibration....even something as big and slow as me :) then,

....why can't what we call spiritual beings be natural? Just another part of the universe, that our 5 senses usually can't directly experience? Why can't magic be "natural". Is it necessary to really make a distinction between what is material and natural, and what we call "spiritual"?

What if the first two distinct vibrational levels that occurred was what we experience as masculine and femminine? From there, you had atoms, moelecules, gods and goddesses, stars and what have you etc.

Heck it even seems logical.

[Know Your Rights]

Both natural and unnatural... the concept of energies in everything is natural, but the bending it to one's will isn't natural... but that being said, unnatural does not = evil

I agree, but I'll also say that I believe that some people are better able to tap into the energy around them to be able to 'bend' it to their will.

[sweetfairy]

I agree, but I'll also say that I believe that some people are better able to tap into the energy around them to be able to 'bend' it to their will.


very very truthful point ..i must agree

[RainInanna]

I think the term "supernatural" is misleading. People who use the term do so to refer to something they don't experience normally. Once you start practicing magic all that "supernatural" stuff becomes quite normal. I would say you realize it exists quite naturally, we just aren't necessarily aware of it. Therefore it was never really "supernatural", just "rare and hidden from many".

[Lovehound]

What is this response "a bit of both - natural and mystical"?

Mystical is unnatural??

How can ANYTHING be unnatural??

That's like asking "Is the wheel a machine?"

I'm going to assume people know what the four basic machines are: the wheel, the inclined plane, the lever and the pulley.

[Luminessence]

I can't answer whether it's natural or mystical, because I think that mysticism is natural.

[Grimr]

I put a bit of both because it has natural elements that occur in mystical traditions.

With that been said it can be said that Shamanism was one of the first spiritual traditions around in humanity.