hello Mogg/Khem/James,
Mogg:
>>> I do understand that some _modern_ occultists have
>>> developed a view of magick as a technology -
it does help to specify what one is attempting to explain,
whether a technology, or a power reservoir for performing
miracles or other feats, or a character of experience or
of thought. that way one may then set about rationally
discussing it with others and examining its facets.
"Khem Caigan" <[log in to unmask]>:
>> So you ignore or disregard the /ancients/
>> that regarded magic as technology(?)
<snip>
it would be nice to establish details on how far back
that extended and with what other technologies it
was classed. I saw some of this in this thread already.
James John Bell <[log in to unmask]>:
> Didn't Arthur C. Clarke nail this technology/magic
> debate a while ago? :)
I don't know how. I know he explained, without
any justification as to what magic was, that
Any sufficiently advanced technology
will be indistinguishable from magic.
or something alike to this. how do you think that
this "nails" the debate in some way? what do you
think he may have meant here *by* magic?
it has never been clear to me, based strictly on
this "law"s content, what Clarke presumed magic
must be. surely he had to specify elsewise
that it was something like mystification or
legerdemain or some other facile deception.
as such, it does not appear to relegate magic to
a category of any reliable character, merely a
qualification of 'confusing mystery' or the like.
thanks.
nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
-----------------------------------------------------
*Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------
|