"Wayne Throop" <throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1199317133@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> :: I disagree. The point is that ALL "magic" IS "science", that the
> :: only difference is our level of understanding of it.
>
> : Howard Brazee <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> : But most anybody has a dividing line and can point to "magic" and
> : "science". You're saying that they all understand science and don't
> : understand magic?
>
> I supplied examples that, it seems to me, indicate cases where science,
> named as such, is not understood, and vice versa. So I'd disagree with
> somebody saying that.
>
> And note: such a definition of "magic" renders it a property entirely of
> the observer/audience, and not of the process/object/whatnot under
> discussion. Yet, as an descriptive term it's applied to
> processes/objects, not observers/audiences.
Art is a metaphor.
That's why "art" is subjective. Some people see the relation****p between
the
object of art and the object being symbolized. Some don't. Some see the
same
references; some don't, or see different references.
> Sometimes it's convenient to do that, but in this case it seems largely
> INconvenient, especially since "X is magic" and "Y is science", as a
> language
> usage, doesn't mention "to whom" at all. Hence, misleading,
inconvenient,
> less-than-useful, etc, etc. IMO.
>
>
> Wayne Throop throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sheol.org/throopw
Let me help:
There's NO "MAGIC" per se, merely various branches of "science" of which
we
have varying levels of understanding.
"Magic" has been a handy label for that which we don't understand--yet ...
and may never understand.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
