The reason why in an earlier post I said that I might be conflating (I actually mis-typed this as ‘onflating’) magic and religion is that I think that religion, let alone the societal and organisation aspect of it, implies an external purpose for one’s practice. I would be inclined to argue that religion probably has some idea of worship involved in it. Magic seems to be more a series of techniques, or a way of thinking, that may well underpin religion, but does not necessarily mean that it is an end in itself.
I understand that Mogg’s point of view is that magic is his religion. Of course I can’t speak for someone else but I can’t quite see how someone could meditate, or pray, or perform any other action without some kind of religious purpose in view. It might be God (in whatever form), Fate, or an animistic universe, or Nature, or whatever. I suppose it might be self-improvement. It might also be that magical explanations can be called forth in explaining the universe, without positing any divine or other principle behind it. Magical practice without purpose, in the sense of aim or end result, however, makes wonder why one should make the effort.
I see my view as somewhat naïve, I agree. I’m happy to be corrected. It’s just that I recall Roy Porter, when he supervised me many years ago, seemed to think that Renaissance humanists hadn’t really achieved very much for the general good. I’m not sure that I’d agree with this. If magicians are the élite of élites, their contribution to the general good seems even more limited. In this context, I think of Marlowe’s version of Dr Faustus: cut is the branch that might have grown full straight?
Best wishes,
Richard
PS, Mogg, do you still have those meetings in Oxford — I recall going to them, perhaps 12/15 years ago? Please let me know if you do — it would be interesting to meet again. Do contact me off-list on [log in to unmask]
|