"Wayne Throop" <throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1199324414@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>: "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, is and continues to be used to refer to phenomena that isn't
understood. "Unicorn" is not used to refer to cows or other multi-horned
animals with only one horn in view--or even rhinos.
> : "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
Um, have you heard of the "Observer effect"?
-- Ken from Chicago
|
