: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: There's NO "MAGIC" per se, merely various branches of "science" of which
we
: have varying levels of understanding.
No magic, sure, sure. But just because there's no magic doesn't justify
an insistance that "magic" means something that does exist, but isn't
understood. Similarly, there are no unicorns, but this doesn't mean
it's a good idea to insist that "unicorn" means "a cow with only one
horn in view right now, and as soon as we see more of it, it'll become
a cow again, and people who say "I only see one horn" are treating it
as a unicorn".
: "Magic" has been a handy label for that which we don't understand--yet
No, magic has been a handy label for a kind of causality that is
appealing to animists and numerologists and other folks who see symbols
and homunculi in everything, that turns out not to be the case.
( Yes, I realize I'm using "homunculi" in a slightly non-standard,
generalized way, to mean seeing "little men" in everything, rather
than just inside bigger men, gametes, or the like. But that's what
magic is all about; supposing phenomena are best explained by
symbolic connections and intelligent agency. )
Wayne Throop throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sheol.org/throopw
|
