Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[George-ananda]

Hmm, perhaps the term fits better than I thought? I tend to think of everything as "natural" in that nothing is above or beyond nature. I thought that was a distinction, but maybe not.

People seem to recoil from the term 'atheist-materialist' as it sounds too harsh of a view. But from what I have read from you so far, the paganism you ascribe to is still under the grand umbrella of 'materialism'.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Why?

I really hope that I am mistaken that in my idea that I made a point which angered Erebus and he decided to ignore me because he does not have a counter point.

 

[Erebus]

People seem to recoil from the term 'atheist-materialist' as it sounds too harsh of a view. But from what I have read from you so far, the paganism you ascribe to is still under the grand umbrella of 'materialism'.

Materialist seems to fit better than I originally thought, but I'd still argue that atheist doesn't. My gods are still gods (at least, they are to me).

*Edit*
In any case, you've given me something to ponder and read up on, so thank you

 

[Riverwolf]

Personally I think neo-pagans call it magic instead of what it is, because

(a): It makes them feel more special and unique.

(b): They think it was classical pagans called it.

I don't know about what "Classical" (i.e. "Greco-Roman") pre-Christians called it, but I do happen to know what it was called in Old English: Dweomercræft. The Modern English rendition could either be Dwimmercraft or Dwemmercraft. (In Old English, æ is like the a in cat, so Modern English "craft" and Old English "cræft" are pronounced, and basically mean, exactly the same).

At least that was one form. Another form was called galdorcræft, or alternatively ġealdorcræft(the dotted "ġ" here is prounounced similar to a Modern English "y", BTW), which was more specifically a verbal practice; the word is related to "galan" which meant "sing" (and is the ancestor of Modern English "gale"), and "ġiellan", which became the Modern English word "yell".

There was also lǣċecræft, which meant medical practice, and became the Modern English "leechcraft".

 

[Riverwolf]

I really hope that I am mistaken that in my idea that I made a point which angered Erebus and he decided to ignore me because he does not have a counter point.

You probably are.

You did, after all, make a very broad generalization, and in a very condescending way.

 

[Quintessence]

You could call Dancing "moving around."

This. This made me laugh out loud.

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.

... and this did too.

 

[Erebus]

This. This made me laugh out loud.

... and this did too.

Glad to hear it

 

[Quintessence]

Personally I think neo-pagans call it magic instead of what it is, because

(a): It makes them feel more special and unique.

(b): They think it was classical pagans called it.

Neopaganism inherited the term "magick" (yes, with the 'k') because of the influence of Western occultism on the movement. Did the ceremonial magickians who were the precursors to magical systems in Neopaganism do it for these reasons? As they weren't interested in reviving Paganisms, the second is unlikely. As for the first? I haven't studied the history of Western occultism enough to remark upon it, but if I had to guess, we probably won't ever know the answer since the folks involved in the Western occult revival are no longer with us to respond to that question.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

My problem or could be problem with this, is that, when some one says ''demon'' for example, there is a big difference between the 'literal' meaning /an actual demon/, and , something this being called a 'demon', but not literally so. That's great, however, when it isn't specified as to which definition one is using, literal or metaphor ,what have you, then it can be unclear about what one is talking about/referring to.

 

[Erebus]

My problem or could be problem with this, is that, when some one says ''demon'' for example, there is a big difference between the 'literal' meaning /an actual demon/, and , something this being called a 'demon', but not literally so. That's great, however, when it isn't specified as to which definition one is using, literal or metaphor ,what have you, then it can be unclear about what one is talking about/referring to.

That's fair enough, but this is also why I pointed out that these terms have their own meanings within a particular community.

You are correct though, insofar as when people from different groups meet, these terms need to be clarified. If a Pagan, a Christian, a Hindu, a Satanist and an Atheist were all to sit down to discuss demons, they'll get nowhere until they've first expressed what a demon is to them.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

You probably are.

You did, after all, make a very broad generalization, and in a very condescending way.

Can you talk about the behavior of any group witout being broad?

Also I was trying to objectively deduce the reasons why I think that people wish to do that.

If someone disagrees with these reasons, they should provide counter arguments not storm of angrily.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Neopaganism inherited the term "magick" (yes, with the 'k') because of the influence of Western occultism on the movement. Did the ceremonial magickians who were the precursors to magical systems in Neopaganism do it for these reasons? As they weren't interested in reviving Paganisms, the second is unlikely. As for the first? I haven't studied the history of Western occultism enough to remark upon it, but if I had to guess, we probably won't ever know the answer since the folks involved in the Western occult revival are no longer with us to respond to that question.

Yes I said that is what they think.

Because for the most part we do not know what the classical pagans thought, ESPICALLY in the case of the Celts which many attribute this sort of thing towards.

Also I agree that magic should be spelled magick when being applied to the neopagan and new age occultism as the word has a different meaning than the word magic does, in fact I think divination should have a similar spelling change to make this distinction clear as well.

 

[Erebus]

I really hope that I am mistaken that in my idea that I made a point which angered Erebus and he decided to ignore me because he does not have a counter point.

As a rule, the only people I put on ignore are those who respond to every thread with a load of scripture.

Your post on this thread was the straw that broke the camel's back. I have limited patience and between the divination thread and this one, I got the impression that you were being flippant and not interested in learning.

So, given our interactions so far I have to ask: Do you understand the points made by myself and others between these two threads? You don't have to agree with them, but if there's something you didn't understand by all means say so.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because for the most part we do not know what the classical pagans thought, ESPICALLY in the case of the Celts which many attribute this sort of thing towards.

To clarify, "classical" typically refers to "Greco-Roman", whom we do know a significant amount about when it comes to their pre-Christian beliefs; they were very fond of writing things down.

However, when it comes to the Celts (a group and word that modern Neopagans also often get wrong), you're correct: we do know next to nothing about them. All we have, for the most part, are the writings of Romans (their conquerors), and archaeology. I'm very glad that modern Druid organizations try to hammer that home: that their practices are modern and not necessarily what the historical Druids did.

Heck, a lot of people, especially in America (not just among Neopagans, either), are under the impression that "Celtic" is synonymous "Irish". I used to be one such person. (I've also heard one person, no joke, compare the historical Celts to hippies. I'm not sure even double Picard-Ryker facepalm is enough for that.) Fact is, Celtic-speaking Tribes were widely-dispersed all over Europe, and the group that the Romans were generally talking about with their word were the Gauls... who lived in Modern France. The British were ... well, the British, and the Irish were barely spoken of, but otherwise called Hibernians by the Romans when they were.

 

[Quintessence]

As I've been learning more about Celtic lore, I wager that the tendency to consider Celtic as synonymous with Irish is because that material survived more than anything else did. Unlike the Mabinogion, which thoroughly overwritten with the Christian agendas of the time, some of the Irish tales weren't bastardized in this way quite so heavily.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

As a rule, the only people I put on ignore are those who respond to every thread with a load of scripture.

Your post on this thread was the straw that broke the camel's back. I have limited patience and between the divination thread and this one, I got the impression that you were being flippant and not interested in learning.

So, given our interactions so far I have to ask: Do you understand the points made by myself and others between these two threads? You don't have to agree with them, but if there's something you didn't understand by all means say so.

I understand your points and your concerns, however I do disagree with them.

I personally believe the logical thing to do is to create a new word or term for what you are doing.

 

[Erebus]

I understand your points and your concerns, however I do disagree with them.

I personally believe the logical thing to do is to create a new word or term for what you are doing.

That's fair enough. I disagree, but I feel we understand each other better now

 

[Riverwolf]

I understand your points and your concerns, however I do disagree with them.

I personally believe the logical thing to do is to create a new word or term for what you are doing.

That might seem like the logical thing to do, but the question isn't so much about whether it should be done, as to whether or not the extreme effort and headaches that creating, universally agreeing upon, and explaining to everybody who isn't part of the community what we mean, is worth the effort of artificially replacing a word (and enforcing that replacement on millions, including non-native speakers of English) which has been an effective description of our practice.

Such things do happen sometimes, but the number of words artificially injected into English as replacements for older ones that are successfully adopted, is far, far less than the ones that just get forgotten within a few years. And usually when it's successful, there's often something very, very important at stake, such as peoples' rights.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Such things do happen sometimes, but the number of words artificially injected into English as replacements for older ones that are successfully adopted, is far, far less than the ones that just get forgotten within a few years. And usually when it's successful, there's often something very, very important at stake, such as peoples' rights.

This would not be a replacement for divination, it is a new word for a concept people tried to add to divination.

 

[Riverwolf]

This would not be a replacement for divination, it is a new word for a concept people tried to add to divination.

Not tried. Succeeded.