Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

The main purpose was to reduce the constrictions natural languages place upon thinking.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

So is my safe key.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

Seriously? I have not taken a philosophy class? Have you?

I would recommend Epistemology.

I am defining words.

You are saying word A does not apply to Word B and I proved you wrong.

We are using English, not your jargon.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

Thanks for blatantly lying.

I have already stated that I have done 'magic' with Wicca, Thelema, and Chaos Magick.

Here I specifically stated that I have done magic with these groups. I did NOT states that these groups are magic.

A religion, a philosophy, and a movement that doesn't even hide the fact that it's psychology and not magic. None of this name dropping is impressive nor suggests you have any authority in the area.

YOU are stating that these groups claim what they do is psychology and not magic.

Therefore you are claiming Wiccans do not claim to use magic which is false.

Don't slander me again.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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

When did I say a magician has to understand their rituals before doing them?

I said IF a magician understands their rituals.

 

[Quintessence]

That really sounds like falling in to peer pressure.

I'm rather surprised you would interpret it that way. Weren't you just telling us a while ago that those who practice divination ought to fall in line with how the term is defined in a standard dictionary? In other words, we ought to give in to the peer pressure of non-practitioners imposing their perspective on practitioners?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I'm rather surprised you would interpret it that way. Weren't you just telling us a while ago that those who practice divination ought to fall in line with how the term is defined in a standard dictionary? In other words, we ought to give in to the peer pressure of non-practitioners imposing their perspective on practitioners?

No I am simply using a language.

You are choosing to try to warp a language instead of being creative.

 

[Quintessence]

No I am simply using a language.

You are choosing to try to warp a language instead of being creative.

LOL!

Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

LOL!

Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.

We both agree that the definition of magic as used by English is not the same as the word is used in the Occultic setting correct?

 

[Quintessence]

We both agree that the definition of magic as used by English is not the same as the word is used in the Occultic setting correct?

Definitions of terms in English include those used by specialist communities, so... that's not quite how I would put it, no. There isn't "the" definition of magic in English, there are many definitions of magic in English, including the many understandings one finds within occult/metaphysical communities.... along with a ton of other ones.

But... I mean... for realz. The evolution of language - what you call "warping" it - is creativity. It's how language evolves. By "warping" it - by creating new meaning. That... is kind of how people use language. Meh, @Riverwolf is better at explaining that kind of stuff. I defer to them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Definitions of terms in English include those used by specialist communities, so... that's not quite how I would put it, no. There isn't "the" definition of magic in English, there are many definitions of magic in English, including the many understandings one finds within occult/metaphysical communities.... along with a ton of other ones.

But... I mean... for realz. The evolution of language - what you call "warping" it - is creativity. It's how language evolves. By "warping" it - by creating new meaning. That... is kind of how people use language. Meh, @Riverwolf is better at explaining that kind of stuff. I defer to them.

You put it pretty well. Languages evolve by people speaking them "incorrectly".

But it's not really "incorrect". It's adaptation based on the communicative needs of a given community.

It's evolution.

 

[1137]

So is my safe key.

Yes, and you knowing where your safe key is doesn't make it any less occult. This is why your point about magic and mystery is ridiculous.

Seriously? I have not taken a philosophy class? Have you?

I would recommend Epistemology.

I am defining words.

You are saying word A does not apply to Word B and I proved you wrong.

We are using English, not your jargon.

Yeah actually, it was my original major and I excelled at it to such an extent that I still guest speak and teach for philosophy and religion college courses. I asked because all you did was lift some definitions and tie them together. I was asking you to prove, logically or empirically, that the mind is 100% tied to the materialistic world of nature, which you didn't even come close to doing. Words have nothing to do with it. As I said, if you could prove this you would likely be world famous, but you, nor anyone can.

Thanks for blatantly lying.



Here I specifically stated that I have done magic with these groups. I did NOT states that these groups are magic.



YOU are stating that these groups claim what they do is psychology and not magic.

Therefore you are claiming Wiccans do not claim to use magic which is false.

Don't slander me again.

Erm, I stand by what I said. Wicca is a religion, Thelema is a philosophy,and chaos magick is an admittedly psychological practice. Of course some Wiccans use magic, though not all, which was my point. How did I slander you? At least now we know you have no kind of extensive background in the areas.

When did I say a magician has to understand their rituals before doing them?

I said IF a magician understands their rituals.

And I said IF a doctor understands the practice of medicine, they are no longer practicing medicine? I got to say I was excited when you joined the forum, but now I just can't settle on if you're purposely trolling or just have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[1137]

I have to thank @Erebus for this thread, I'd forgot just how all penetrating the study of magic is. People, including me, tend to get stuck between pure psychology and pure spirituality when it comes to magic, it's nice to be reminded what an integral part magic plays in the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

The main purpose was to reduce the constrictions natural languages place upon thinking.

...as the British would put it, that's a brave idea.

 

[Erebus]

I have to thank @Erebus for this thread, I'd forgot just how all penetrating the study of magic is. People, including me, tend to get stuck between pure psychology and pure spirituality when it comes to magic, it's nice to be reminded what an integral part magic plays in the world.

My pleasure, I'm glad you found it useful

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Magic, theoretically, should be able to work over any distance and regardless of knowledge of the target. The placebo effect requires the 'target' to both know what is being done and to expect result X. Not to mention the placebo effect does nothing to things like cancer or what have you. You may feel better, but the cancer is going to be there.

Not at all.
If you feel better then you are less likely to pursue carcinogenic behavior,
such as sugar, gluten, alcohol or tobacco addiction. (Or all of them together).

Simply 'feeling better' willfully still remains a mysterious and magical process.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

There have been a few threads cropping up discussing contemporary Paganisms and modern spellcraft. In these threads, practitioners will often explain magic, gods, etc in terms of more readily understood and decidedly more mundane phenomena. Divination is a form of introspection, gods are archetypes and/or parts of nature, magic is the clever use of psychology and so on.

One question/criticism that's come up a couple of times in response is, "why call it call it magic when we understand it to be placebo?" or something to that effect. I've seen this come up a lot in the past. I figured I'd take the time to cover some of the reasoning behind this. Other practitioners are welcome to chime in and add to/refute these points.

Magic is real and we're starting to learn how it works.
This is a big one and it should excite people. While science is a wonderful thing, there's an unfortunate tendency among scientists and lovers of science to use the discovery of something amazing to disprove the very thing that was discovered.
Let me pose a question, let's say a witch doctor performs a ritual to help somebody get better. They don't use medicinal herbs, only ritual. The person they were performing the ritual for notices an improvement in their health. Why?
Some of you may have said something to the effect of, "because of the placebo effect." I would agree with that statement. I would also say that this shows us how magic works. We've discovered one of several methods by which casting a spell can have a real-world impact. Why then turn around and say, "You see? It was never real." This baffles me.

You could call Dancing "moving around."
That would be an accurate enough description of what dancing is, but it lacks impact. It lacks that something extra. Gods are similar in my opinion. When I look at the night sky, I see beauty, majesty and a touch of melancholy. I see the goddess Nyx. I could just call it "night" and if you personally want to, that's fine. Associating it with Nyx is my way of expressing that mix of emotion and awe.

We don't use these terms for the benefit of outsiders.
That sounds horribly elitist, but hear me out. Some people argue that using the terminology we do is confusing. they argue that we should be using more commonly accepted terms. That's fair enough ... except that we understand what these terms mean. We understand the implications. Pagans, occultists and various witches tend not to proselytize. Few of us feel a need to compel others to join our religion. As such, there's not much call for making these things more understandable to people who don't follow our path.
Let's use an analogy here. Imagine telling a geologist that they shouldn't be using all those complicated terms and specialist vocabulary when they could just say "rocks." It's inevitable that like-minded groups will develop quirks of language to more readily communicate with one another.

What harm does it do?
A minor point perhaps, but one that I feel is worth stating. A difference in vocabulary is a very minor thing. Occasionally, somebody will get surprisingly angry about it. Why? Surely there are bigger and better things to get angry about.
I should note that this last point isn't aimed at those who are just asking an honest question.

Well, hopefully that clears things up a bit and gives people something to ponder.

Very well put.

But people normally use language more complex than required in order to disguise a lack of genuine analysis.
This has a terrible negative impact on how funding is allocated in academia, as it is often used to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer.
It accounts for more than half the cost of the global medical bill, as well as being the central weapon of corruption in the legal system.

When people get very angry about language, its a way of building a social-psychological wall around their corruption.
Often it acts as 'priming' to put a victim into a fearful mindset, weakening them to attacks, both economical and even physical.

 

[Nietzsche]

Not at all.
If you feel better then you are less likely to pursue carcinogenic behavior,
such as sugar, gluten, alcohol or tobacco addiction. (Or all of them together).

Simply 'feeling better' willfully still remains a mysterious and magical process.

..You're well aware as to what I meant regarding "curing". Preventing =/= curing.

 

[Erebus]

Very well put.

But people normally use language more complex than required in order to disguise a lack of genuine analysis.
This has a terrible negative impact on how funding is allocated in academia, as it is often used to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer.
It accounts for more than half the cost of the global medical bill, as well as being the central weapon of corruption in the legal system.

When people get very angry about language, its a way of building a social-psychological wall around their corruption.
Often it acts as 'priming' to put a victim into a fearful mindset, weakening them to attacks, both economical and even physical.

Thank you

Language can be a very powerful tool, perhaps more powerful than people sometimes realise. I don't know a great deal about what you describe here, it's not something I've really seen brought up in quite that way. I do agree though that it's a potent weapon in the arsenal of any politician skilled in its use.

 

[Quintessence]

But people normally use language more complex than required in order to disguise a lack of genuine analysis.
This has a terrible negative impact on how funding is allocated in academia, as it is often used to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer.

Beg your pardon, but I have to ask. What is your experience in handling grant funding and allocation in academia (aka, at public and private universities)?