 |
 |
On 1 May 2018, at 15:48, Robert Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Robert MathiesenI made a stab at such a definition of magic in 1995, in "Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa: The Written Tradition," _Byzantine Magic_, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995), 155-177. It is available gratis on-line at several places.Some things of academic interest can be defined *only* as residue classes, that is, as the set of all objects remaining once several other, well-defined sets of objects have been cut out of a wider, well-defined domain. There cannot be any "positive" definition of any residue class (i.e. magic is W), only a negative definition (i.e. magic is whatever is *not* X, Y, Z ... within such-and-such a domain).Approaching our subject in this light, "magic" can be defined as whatever is left over once you have cut such things as "science," "technology" (in the very broad, pre-electronic sense of that word), "religion" -- and possibly several other well-defined things -- from a much larger , well-defined set of human activities.On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Institute Neuropathic Pain R&D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Dear Colleagues,The last definition of McGilchrist is clearly nice but remains a phantasy definition, based on incomplete and not-recent ideas about our right and left brain half.Basically one can try and retry but there is in my opinion no coherent definition possible of magic, only private and personal views, beliefs and experiences.Moreover magic can be experienced to be all around us manifesting in all what is, and thus any demarcation between magic and non-magic will end in failures…Doing magic seems at the end and at the beginning more relevant than defining it….;)Best regards,Jan M. Keppel Hesselink, MD, PhDProfessor of molecular pharmacologyPrivate magicianOp 1 mei 2018, om 11:37 heeft Voss, Angela ([log in to unmask]) <[log in to unmask]> het volgende geschreven:I rather like Iain McGilchrist's definition of magic, which goes something like "for the left hemisphere, magic is about powers it can't understand, but for the right hemisphere it is simply the way the world works".Dr Angela Voss SFHEAProgramme DirectorMA in Myth, Cosmology and the SacredSchool of Childhood and Education Sciences (@schoolofches)Canterbury Christ Church UniversityRoom: F5.11 Tel. 01227 921596, mob. 07787 434958
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic <ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@ JISCMAIL.AC.UK> on behalf of Ethan Doyle White <[log in to unmask] UK>
Sent: 30 April 2018 21:19
To: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@ JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] UNSUBSCRIBEThere is one issue in this present conversation that I feel is pertinent but which, as of yet, has yet to really be addressed. And that’s a simple question: what is magic? It is difficult to define the differences between magic and science if there is no clarity on what one actually means by these terms to start with. The relationship between the two categories is going to look very different depending on how we define our terms.
There are those on this list who (as well as being scholars) are practicing occultists (Wiccans, Thelemites, ceremonial magicians and the like) and who would presumably use the term “magic” to describe what they believe to be some sort of force, as yet not recognised or understood by the mainstream scientific community, through which the physical universe can be manipulated. In their view, this force is typically activated through will-power, which can be focused through ceremonial or ritualised acts – from something as simple as lighting a candle to full on sex. Aleister Crowley of course produced the classic definition of this, although we see not dissimilar definitions being issued by many occultists since him, from Dion Fortune to Anton LaVey. In this sense, “magic” is a sort of “religious” belief, perhaps best understood as a category alongside other categories like “afterlife”, “theism”, or “divination”. If this is the understanding of “magic” that one is working with then there are obviously going to be differences with the scientific method.
But this is not the only understanding of “magic”; rather it is just one of the most recent in a very long line of attempts to use the term, stretching back to Ancient Greek borrowings from the Persian language. For someone like the medieval ecclesiast Isidore of Sevile, “magic” was a much broader term, into which could be placed all manner of heterodox beliefs and practices which did not fit with his particular Roman Catholic world-view. And then, fast forwarding to more recent times, you have social scientists like Durkheim or James Frazer again trying to use “magic” as cross-cultural categories to define certain forms of practice which they regarded as being in some way distinct from “religion” and “science”. These understandings of “magic” are very different from those promoted by modern occultists.
This group calls itself the “Academic Study of Magic”; but what is this “magic” that we are studying? Perhaps it is only when that question has been answered then we can really engage with the question of how “magic” relates to “science”.
Best
Ethan Doyle White
https://ucl.academia.edu/ EthanDoyleWhite
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic <ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@ JISCMAIL.AC.UK> on behalf of Melissa Harrington <0000066271b63b8b-dmarc- [log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 1:36:44 PM
To: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@ JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] UNSUBSCRIBEThank you Felicity,I'm a magician but also trained in scientific research methods, which offer invaluable help in understanding human processes in religion and magic, in a field that has hardly just begun. Your post is a fantastic answer to the one that started this thread, which to me was not scientific at all, as another earlier post also succinctly pointed out.regardsMelissaOn 29 April 2018 at 11:51, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <[log in to unmask] com> wrote:thanks for that rich presentation, FelicitytoyinOn 28 April 2018 at 23:11, F Grove <[log in to unmask]> wrot e:I think I am one of those who is the other way around. My profession is Scientist, specifically Biochemistry. I am also a bit of a dabbler in the magic.. Perhaps because I have been embroiled in science and after many a debate with fellow Pagans, it is clear that quite a few people are not entirely sure what actually is science and scientific thinking.Science is an approach to looking at the world in order to make sense of it. It is concerned with the how of nature and not the why which is the realm of religion. Recently, I have found myself presenting at academic conferences on religion where I pipe up in group discussions when they come close to crossing the line into science is bad. At these conferences a number have had difficulty understanding that it is possible, without losing authenticity, to be both Scientist and Pagan. What is essentially the same can be summarized as both being in awe of nature.A scientist will only use the word ' never' to say that she/he/they will never say never. The proverbial door must always remain open for the possibility of another explanation for something existing and how something works. It is here where my interest lies. Science cannot explain everything and nor does it profess to. I have heard the ridiculous claim by some people that they only believe in what we know. No scientist would ever agree both in 'only what we already know' (which has implications for the future of research!) and the belief part (belief is simply unnecessary). It is the beauty, the awe, the mystery which are driving forces for scientists.In my own professed field, biochemistry has progressed in fits and starts largely because of developments in technology. Possibly the most notable recent one was the development of methods to isolate and be able to see the order (sequencing) of the nucleotide base sequences in DNA leading to a very practical use - DNA fingerprinting. Had we known centuries ago that it would be possibly to identify individuals by just a mere fingerprint we might have been burnt at the stake!My point is that science cannot (yet) explain magic. Scientists can never say that it does not. What we can say is that repeatable, quantifiable, well controlled, etc. essentially application of scientific method, efforts to measure it have elucidated us thus far. Research to gain such evidence is not well funded and thus there is not a lot of it going on. There are some excellent centers that are doing just that. Half the battle with research, even if it is good research, is getting it published. (Trust me I know and fortunately not directly involving me!)Mysticism does not need to be closed off to the scientist. There is much work to be done in research. Older science has been reductionist where as newer ones involve group effects. I am hopeful that there will be further developments in approach to doing science that still have the scientific method at its core that will clearly demonstrate what it is that is going on when we do magic.FelicityTo whom it may concern:
I've spent the last several years studying science instead of mysticism throughout history. I've found science to be the true study of knowledge and the best way to advance the human intellect and philosophies.
I still find magic and mysticism interesting in a historical and entertainment sense, but I also find it to be based wholly on fantasy rather than facts. That being said, the entire subject of religion and spirituality is a delusional fantasy created and evolved from early human times and wholly in error.
Even so, there are things to learn in the study of magic and mysticism. I just hope the group will not conflate its study with facts and reality other than how those delusions and mistaken ideas have led us astray.
Yours in the spirit of education and study,
MarcOn Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Shazdair <[log in to unmask]> wrote:To whom it may concern:
I've spent the last several years studying science instead of mysticism throughout history. I've found science to be the true study of knowledge and the best way to advance the human intellect and philosophies.
I still find magic and mysticism interesting in a historical and entertainment sense, but I also find it to be based wholly on fantasy rather than facts. That being said, the entire subject of religion and spirituality is a delusional fantasy created and evolved from early human times and wholly in error.
Even so, there are things to learn in the study of magic and mysticism. I just hope the group will not conflate its study with facts and reality other than how those delusions and mistaken ideas have led us astray.
Yours in the spirit of education and study,
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@J ISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Sarah L. Veale
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:36 PM
To: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@ JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Digest - 24 Apr 2018 to 26 Apr 2018 (#2018-16)
Dear Pavel,
Your student may be interested in some of the resources collected on the Network for the Study of Esotericism in Antiquity (NSEA) website.
Under the topic "Magic & Divination" we have links to several online databases and resources for ancient magical texts and objects:
https://ancientesotericism.org /magic-divination/magic/
Best,
Sarah L. Veale, BA (Hons.), MA
Doctoral Student
Department of History
York University
Co-director, Network for the Study of Esotericism in Antiquity
AncientEsotericism.org
SarahVeale.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic <ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@JISCMAIL .AC.UK> On Behalf Of ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC automatic digest system
Sent: April 26, 2018 6:03 PM
To: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@ JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Digest - 24 Apr 2018 to 26 Apr 2018 (#2018-16)
There are 2 messages totaling 383 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Fw: Symposium Supernatural Places Revisted
2. a database of magical textx?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 23:17:43 +0200
From: Pavel Horák <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: a database of magical textx?
Dear ASM members,
I have one particular question and would like to hear your comments on that:
Have you ever encountered a special database focused on sources dealing with magic?
I do not mean EBSCO or Jstor, but whether is there any databases of a similar sorts but mainly with original writings dealing with magic etc. We have been discussing this matter with a colleague of mine and I realized I was not able to answer him completely. He would be particularly interested in ancient Rome and Greece, Babylonia, Egypt,..
Thank you for your help and suggstions :-)
Mgr. Pavel Horak
Department for the Study of Religions
University of Pardubice
Czech Republic
------------------------------
End of ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Digest - 24 Apr 2018 to 26 Apr 2018 (#2018-16)
****************************** ****************************** **************
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antiviru s