Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[Riverwolf]

If we wish to take this view than what is magic or not is subjective.

Is that a problem? I figured that was just a given. All language is inherently subjective, after all.

Also if you understood how something worked it would not be magic, which would mean that the rituals used are not magic.

Indeed, which follows what I said. Which means for the vast majority of computer users, it's magic.

Age of information? Nay. Age of bloody wizards. (Which, come to think of it, seems to have been realized by many modern fantasy writers and game designers. Seriously, Intelligence was the Prime Requisite for magic-users in AD&D, and Truth was the primary principle, with Honesty the primary virtue, of wizards in the Ultima games.)

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Is that a problem? I figured that was just a given. All language is inherently subjective, after all.



Indeed, which follows what I said. Which means for the vast majority of computer users, it's magic.

Age of information? Nay. Age of bloody wizards. (Which, come to think of it, seems to have been realized by many modern fantasy writers and game designers. Seriously, Intelligence was the Prime Requisite for magic-users in AD&D, and Truth was the primary principle, with Honesty the primary virtue, of wizards in the Ultima games.)

Just saying in AD&D Wizards use Intelligence.

Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Rangers, and Paladins did not.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Is that a problem? I figured that was just a given. All language is inherently subjective, after all.



Indeed, which follows what I said. Which means for the vast majority of computer users, it's magic.

Age of information? Nay. Age of bloody wizards. (Which, come to think of it, seems to have been realized by many modern fantasy writers and game designers. Seriously, Intelligence was the Prime Requisite for magic-users in AD&D, and Truth was the primary principle, with Honesty the primary virtue, of wizards in the Ultima games.)

Also that means that the term magic has no use in specify any specific thing.

Therefore these things "magicians" do with their rituals would be called magic by those wo do not understand it, but to people who understand the psychology it will not.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Nobody has actually bothered to engage me about an example of magic I've done before. This is not atypical. I (or others) will present something, and it'll be ignored, overlooked, dismissed as "not good enough" by the audience. Which then makes me ask the question: is it really debate this person is interested in? Or is it pigeon chess?

Ok please repost the example because I must have missed it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Just saying in AD&D Wizards use Intelligence.

Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Rangers, and Paladins did not.

LOL Fair point. (Are Sorcerers even part of AD&D?)

Also that means that the term magic has no use in specify any specific thing.

In a hypothetical word-vacuum, this is true. But words don't actually exist in such vacuums; it's the context of the conversation that gives these polysemic words their specificity. (...it's most frustrating that English doesn't have context built into its grammar like, say, Japanese does.) Subcultures typically speak in their own dialects, with their own definitions of words that often differ from those of General American English, United Kingdom Standard English, etc.

Therefore these things "magicians" do with their rituals would be called magic by those wo do not understand it, but to people who understand the psychology it will not.

Which very well could be typical even throughout history. I mean, most of our modern Western conceptions of magic come from old folk tales and old stories that most people know but few people have actually read (generally speaking, of course). Even to this day, storytellers aren't exactly great at understanding such things (hello, multi-spectral subspace engine); let alone Sir Thomas Malory or the anonymous authors of the Icelandic Sagas. Heck, even Shakespeare thought France had lions.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

LOL Fair point. (Are Sorcerers even part of AD&D?)

Fair point in your own right.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

In a hypothetical word-vacuum, this is true. But words don't actually exist in such vacuums; it's the context of the conversation that gives these polysemic words their specificity. (...it's most frustrating that English doesn't have context built into its grammar like, say, Japanese does.) Subcultures typically speak in their own dialects, with their own definitions of words that often differ from those of General American English, United Kingdom Standard English, etc.

It will be that we if we use the word magic to describe anything we find mysterious like you said.

Personally I like Lojban because it can be given clear context so as to not be confused.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Which very well could be typical even throughout history. I mean, most of our modern Western conceptions of magic come from old folk tales and old stories that most people know but few people have actually read (generally speaking, of course). Even to this day, storytellers aren't exactly great at understanding such things (hello, multi-spectral subspace engine); let alone Sir Thomas Malory or the anonymous authors of the Icelandic Sagas. Heck, even Shakespeare thought France had lions.

Yeah but if the magicians understood the rituals, then it wouldn't be magic to them.

 

[Riverwolf]

It will be that we if we use the word magic to describe anything we find mysterious like you said.

I was primarily going off a definition that you provided. I don't usually think of magic as just a reference to "any unknown mechanism". A degree of awe and wonder has to be present, at the VERY least. That's another thing that words communicate that dictionaries never write down (that I've seen): they communicate how the speaker experienced something, not necessarily what was experienced.

I mean, part of my problem with high-magic fantasy settings (even when I like them) is that magic becomes mundane. As a result, well, magic stops being magical.

Personally I like Lojban because it can be given clear context so as to not be confused.

I've heard of it. Sounds interesting. I'll have to look into it. (I hope it's better than the well-intentioned but very Eurocentric Esperanto). I can also try building something like that in the conlang I'm working on.

Yeah but if the magicians understood the rituals, then it wouldn't be magic to them.

Which is also true of stage magicians.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I was primarily going off a definition that you provided. I don't usually think of magic as just a reference to "any unknown mechanism". A degree of awe and wonder has to be present, at the VERY least. That's another thing that words communicate that dictionaries never write down (that I've seen): they communicate how the speaker experienced something, not necessarily what was experienced.

Personally I do not see why people just do not use the word Magick when they want to use their personal definition and the word Magic when they want to use the standard one.

I mean, part of my problem with high-magic fantasy settings (even when I like them) is that magic becomes mundane. As a result, well, magic stops being magical.

Yeah especially in the standard D&D setting, in there most forms of magic are done very scientifically.

I've heard of it. Sounds interesting. I'll have to look into it. (I hope it's better than the well-intentioned but very Eurocentric Esperanto). I can also try building something like that in the conlang I'm working on.

Its word roots are based on the five largest languages when it was developed.


Mandarin, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic.

Which is also true of stage magicians.

Precisely.

 

[Quintessence]

Ok please repost the example because I must have missed it.

Yeah, that happens sometimes, as alerts don't always work quite right. It was this response to you here when you were drawing this strong line between "magic" and "placebo" (which isn't something I would do):

I'm perplexed about the distinction you see between these two things. If we want to limit ourselves to psychological explanations of magic (what I'd prefer to call spellcraft), it is basically a system for taking advantage of the placebo effect. When I was doing field work in the hot Midwestern summers, I would carry a quartz crystal around in my pocket. Through folklore, quartz was seen as permanently frozen water... in other words, ice. Having it in my pocket would psychologically help me overcome the hot weather and make it through the day. Placebo, but it darn well worked.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yeah, that happens sometimes, as alerts don't always work quite right. It was this response to you here when you were drawing this strong line between "magic" and "placebo" (which isn't something I would do):

In response I would ask why there is any good reason to call that magic instead of a placebo?

 

[Riverwolf]

Personally I do not see why people just do not use the word Magick when they want to use their personal definition and the word Magic when they want to use the standard one.

Here, I agree. But it does take time for shifts like that to spread, and trying to force the issue doesn't help things along; if anything, it slows such shifts down.

Probably doesn't help that in spoken English, they sound exactly the same (unless you pronounce the last syllable with more emphasis, but subtleties like that take even LONGER to spread).

Yeah especially in the standard D&D setting, in there most forms of magic are done very scientifically.

Yup...

Its word roots are based on the five largest languages when it was developed.

Mandarin, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic.

VERY interesting... (Though I count six, not five). That still seems somewhat limiting, since four of those are still Indo-European, but that's definitely better than Esperanto.

Precisely.

IOW, what magic refers to is inherently subjective.

 

[Quintessence]

In response I would ask why there is any good reason to call that magic instead of a placebo?

Well, that's what the OP is really about, right? I think @Erebus gets at the good reasons for that fairly well. That they are good reasons for some of us need not be good reasons for others, including you.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

VERY interesting... (Though I count six, not five). That still seems somewhat limiting, since four of those are still Indo-European, but that's definitely better than Esperanto.

Yes, six my bad.

Also to further clarify.

They decided to use the two most popular languages in the world: Mandarin and English to mix together to form the bulk of the word roots, however they used the four runner ups (Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Hindi) to modify some of the word roots to be spoken easier or to not sound like other word roots.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Well, that's what the OP is really about, right? I think @Erebus gets at the good reasons for that fairly well. That they are good reasons for some of us need not be good reasons for others, including you.

Why not just use the word Magick?

 

[Quintessence]

Why not just use the word Magick?

Early on, I did use that spelling. I have not used it in a long time because: (1) my brain interprets it as a misspelled word; the correct spelling is "magic," not "magick" or "majick" or "majik" or whatever, (2) much of the community has moved away from "magick" and now simply spells it "magic," (3) the term I use to refer to that phenomena in my personal practice is "spellcraft" but that term has not been popularized, so I do not always use it when discussing the subject.

 

[1137]

And I pointed out that if you take that definition ANYTHING you find mysterious is magic.

I think you're misunderstanding the term "mysterious" here. A better term is "occult" which means hidden. Magic is an occult practice dealing with occult methods. This road you're going down is a very poor choice, because even if magic is pure psychology it is still occult.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature.

Nature: the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth.

Human: a person, especially as distinguished from other animals.

Brain: the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and many other animals.

Therefore the brain is part of nature and everything it does is natural.

You've never participated in a proper philosophy group or class, have you. I mean, you're actually convinced you've got me here, huh. I hate inform you but you've actually made yet another claim in this argument which is unproven and not even defended, proving absolutely nothing except restating your beliefs.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY DONT PRACTICE MAGIC!

I said Wicca is not magic, then explicitly stated that some Wiccans do indeed practice magic. This is literally one of the most basic, easy to understand distinctions.

You cannot tell me why?

I thought the whole purpose of "magic" was for introspection?

No, though introspection is certainly part of it.

Yeah but if the magicians understood the rituals, then it wouldn't be magic to them.

Uhhhh, why? Does a med student not practice medicine once they finish their program? This makes literally no sense.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, six my bad.

Also to further clarify.

They decided to use the two most popular languages in the world: Mandarin and English to mix together to form the bulk of the word roots, however they used the four runner ups (Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Hindi) to modify some of the word roots to be spoken easier or to not sound like other word roots.

If the goal was to create some kind of Trade Language, that's probably the best route to take. Then again, a language is defined by its grammar perhaps more than by its lexicon. (...okay, it's more complicated than that; what actually defines a language is surprisingly VERY tricky, but neither here nor there). It's often said that Icelandic is the same language as Old Norse, despite having somewhat different lexicons.

...Spanish must have overtaken English since then as the #2 most spoken language by native speakers.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Early on, I did use that spelling. I have not used it in a long time because: (1) my brain interprets it as a misspelled word; the correct spelling is "magic," not "magick" or "majick" or "majik" or whatever, (2) much of the community has moved away from "magick" and now simply spells it "magic," (3) the term I use to refer to that phenomena in my personal practice is "spellcraft" but that term has not been popularized, so I do not always use it when discussing the subject.

That really sounds like falling in to peer pressure.