Origins of magic?

[blindfaith^_^]

Today in Bio class, my teacher went over this corny "Orgins of Science" worksheet where science began because people were curious and it can be traced back to cavemen's experiments with fire. I'm skeptical that what cavemen did with fire can be can be considered scientific, however, I'm not here to talk about that portion of the lesson. What caught my attention was:

"With time, a few people who came to know more than their fellows found that they could pass off much of their knowledge as magic, as they became witch doctors, seers, and oracles. For example, the person who first discovered substances that flare up into brillantly colored flames when they were thrown into the fire could easily convince the others that he had magical power over fire."

Questions:

Does this excerpt apply to the magic we at the pagan scene talk about?

Do you think this is the origin of magic?

Weren't tools of magic used for last resorts when science failed, and if this is true how is it reconciled with this explination?

In this definition science and magic align as the same thing only the individuals watching the act do not understand the process, do you think that this could be the case with magic today even though there is no scientific proof to support such thoughts?  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

I would say that's not at all magic. It's stage magic with the aim of manipulation, which is radically different from what we practice.  

[The Bookwyrm]

Does this excerpt apply to the magic we at the pagan scene talk about?

Not even close. Like Nihil said, that's more like stage magic, smoke and mirrors. The magic we on the NoePagan scene talk about isn't flashy, it's not intended to wow or impress other people; it's actually closer to science. It's a series of actions performed with an intended reaction in mind.

Do you think this is the origin of magic?

Again, no. I believe that magic came out of something much simpler, although around the same time period. Think of the rituals we believe that Neolithic peoples performed before the hunt, dressing up in animal skins and "hunting" one another to ensure a successful hunt. That's sympathetic magic, and I believe that it grew out of a similar tradition.

Weren't tools of magic used for last resorts when science failed, and if this is true how is it reconciled with this explination?

Once upon a time, there was no difference between science and magic. Early healers were thought to have magical powers because of their ability to use herbs; the plants themselves were believed to have magical properties. The truth is, niether were "magical"; it was simply knowledge. Even the healers themselves thought that it was magic, and they weren't trying to mislead people.

Hell, look at alchemy! It was an attempt, once science and magic had been established as different, to combine the two.


In this definition science and magic align as the same thing only the individuals watching the act do not understand the process, do you think that this could be the case with magic today even though there is no scientific proof to support such thoughts?

No.

Magic is a personal tool for most Pagans; I don't go around working spells for people to impress or baffle them. I work it for myself. And there is evidence to suggest that there is power within the mind to effect the outcome of a situation, and that's what magic does: It focuses the mind to effect a desired outcome.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Nihilistic Seraph

I would say that's not at all magic. It's stage magic with the aim of manipulation, which is radically different from what we practice.

I tend to agree that what is explained here is stage magic. I would add that it is possible that these "seers" who learned these interesting different affects with fire began to use them in ritual for specific requests that may have segwayed into magic and rituals as we think of now.

The Bookwyrm

In this definition science and magic align as the same thing only the individuals watching the act do not understand the process, do you think that this could be the case with magic today even though there is no scientific proof to support such thoughts?

No.

Magic is a personal tool for most Pagans; I don't go around working spells for people to impress or baffle them. I work it for myself. And there is evidence to suggest that there is power within the mind to effect the outcome of a situation, and that's what magic does: It focuses the mind to effect a desired outcome.

I think I misworded what I wanted to ask in this one. What I wanted to get at, (though long winded and round about) was that while magic is currently a practice that can not be scientifically proven or disproven do you think that in the future we will have the means to scientifically prove magic? Does it work completely on a system outside science? And lastly along this line is magic my pyschological than anything else?  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

blindfaith^_^

Nihilistic Seraph

I would say that's not at all magic. It's stage magic with the aim of manipulation, which is radically different from what we practice.

I tend to agree that what is explained here is stage magic. I would add that it is possible that these "seers" who learned these interesting different affects with fire began to use them in ritual for specific requests that may have segwayed into magic and rituals as we think of now.

Oh, I imagine it's also quite possible that the tricks turned into ritual tools. An interesting progression that would be, huh?

Quote:

The Bookwyrm

In this definition science and magic align as the same thing only the individuals watching the act do not understand the process, do you think that this could be the case with magic today even though there is no scientific proof to support such thoughts?

No.

Magic is a personal tool for most Pagans; I don't go around working spells for people to impress or baffle them. I work it for myself. And there is evidence to suggest that there is power within the mind to effect the outcome of a situation, and that's what magic does: It focuses the mind to effect a desired outcome.

I think I misworded what I wanted to ask in this one. What I wanted to get at, (though long winded and round about) was that while magic is currently a practice that can not be scientifically proven or disproven do you think that in the future we will have the means to scientifically prove magic? Does it work completely on a system outside science? And lastly along this line is magic my pyschological than anything else?

I'm not sure. I think it's kinda split between psychological emporwement and actual change. I don't think it works outside the realm of science, as that seems to be rather impossible. Rather, we don't understand everything yet.  

[The Bookwyrm]

blindfaith^_^

I think I misworded what I wanted to ask in this one. What I wanted to get at, (though long winded and round about) was that while magic is currently a practice that can not be scientifically proven or disproven do you think that in the future we will have the means to scientifically prove magic? Does it work completely on a system outside science? And lastly along this line is magic my pyschological than anything else?

No worries, hun. Sometimes it's hard to get what we're thinking down on the page. Or the board. wink

Now, to the questions at hand there are some authors out there that believe that there have already been advances made in proving magic through science. There are links being made between certain actions and responces that science is apparently documenting, but isn't fully able to explain as of yet.

I don't think that magic works on a level completely different than science; I don't think that's it's possible given the microscopic nature of the universe. What I think is that magic simply approaches things different, and effects things on a level we can't readily recognize. Like subtly manipulating atoms or such.

I think magic is to a large extent mental; I think that you can will an outcome into existance. My practice has always been used to simply focus my mind. I work spells, but I often wonder how much the spell itself has to actually manifest my desire, or whether it just acts to focusmy mind, to ensure that I'm more perceptive and take more appropriate actions towards obtaining it.  

[Jezehbelle]

There was some ancient civilization that harnessed electricity in claypotbatteries, for religious purposes, but, I can't recall which one or what for. o_O

Those theatrics might've been used (or could've been used) as part of the props we use today. Like incense or candles, tossing whatever substance in the fire to help, as another sortof prop.

And I agree with Bookwyrm, I think magic started as sympathetic magic, but a little earlier in the Upper Paleolithic time period (40,000-10,000BCE, as opposed to 9,000-4,300BCE) when many of the cave paintings were done, and when the "Venus" figures were made.  

[Starlock]

The Bookwyrm

blindfaith^_^

I think I misworded what I wanted to ask in this one. What I wanted to get at, (though long winded and round about) was that while magic is currently a practice that can not be scientifically proven or disproven do you think that in the future we will have the means to scientifically prove magic? Does it work completely on a system outside science? And lastly along this line is magic my pyschological than anything else?

No worries, hun. Sometimes it's hard to get what we're thinking down on the page. Or the board. wink

Now, to the questions at hand there are some authors out there that believe that there have already been advances made in proving magic through science. There are links being made between certain actions and responces that science is apparently documenting, but isn't fully able to explain as of yet.

I don't think that magic works on a level completely different than science; I don't think that's it's possible given the microscopic nature of the universe. What I think is that magic simply approaches things different, and effects things on a level we can't readily recognize. Like subtly manipulating atoms or such.

I think magic is to a large extent mental; I think that you can will an outcome into existance. My practice has always been used to simply focus my mind. I work spells, but I often wonder how much the spell itself has to actually manifest my desire, or whether it just acts to focusmy mind, to ensure that I'm more perceptive and take more appropriate actions towards obtaining it.

Just to add something in here... most (if not all) magical phenomena already have a scientific explanation but they aren't mystical ones. What Bookwyrm says about the mental aspect of magic is the key to that. All magical practice can be boiled down to psychology which makes magic more mundane than most like to think of it as. It's a researched fact for example that salience (how aware you are of something, how in the forefront of your mind it is) has a strong influence on your behavior. If you do a spell to find a job, you're going to raise the salience level so you're more likely psychologically to pick up on an opportunity that comes by.

Most people don't learn about psychology though; it isn't required coursework in high school by and large and learning it from pop psychology is ... inadequate to say the least. So for those who don't know, the scientific explanations pass them by and they use solely the magical ones. And that's fine; I wouldn't at all say that just because there IS a known scientific explanation that this invalidates all other explanations. If science has taught humanity ANYTHING it should be that our explanations are dependent on the information we have available. Other possible explanations always exist and some of them might actually be right!  

[Starlock]

blindfaith^_^

"With time, a few people who came to know more than their fellows found that they could pass off much of their knowledge as magic, as they became witch doctors, seers, and oracles."

What I find curious about this quotation is the phrase "pass off" in there which really implies the kind of slight of hand charade that has been mentioned by other posters thus far. Well, what if it wasn't presented as a charade and they weren't con-people? The figures mentioned played important roles in old times and to write them off as charades doesn't quite paint a good understanding of what they were back then. Sure, they would probably be taken as fakers to us today, but back then, figures like Shamans were truly believed to have the power to bring the sun back during winter!

So it applies to the modern Pagan community in a sense in that it discusses hidden knowledge and sacred power. The more closeted forms of Wicca after all are all about closed-door mysteries as are some other esoteric traditions. These people in another time may well have been treated like oracles; today though they're primarily treated as outsiders or worse, nut-cases. xd

There are a number of works out there on the origin of magic and of the ones I've read, all are flawed in one way or another because of how they go about defining magic. It's interesting to observe, really, how the very definition of 'magic' drastically alters the conclusions one scholar makes as opposed to another. So I ask... what do YOU mean by magic in your post, Blindfaith?  

[blindfaith^_^]

Starlock

So I ask... what do YOU mean by magic in your post, Blindfaith?

My op was more of a "hey I just got out of class and this didn't sit right with me" than an intended definition of magic. I almost said something in class about our little lesson, not just the magic part bugged me but a lot of the fluffy science was annoying too. I'm not very good at science, but for goodness sakes I'm a Junior in college please don't give me a "science began with the curiousity of the cavemen and fire" lecture.

Since I hadn't acted on my feelings in class I took one aspect of the lecture online. I thought all of the langauge on the part of the creator of this lecture was presumptious. She assumes that these cave people really didn't believe what they were telling others. It is a false assumption to think that these seers were with holding knowledge on how to do these "fire tricks" or any other tricks. These people could have been very open with what they discovered. They may have risen to "seer" or "medicine person" status because they were the finders of these abilities and as a result people thought that the finders had a special relationship with the Gods.

It bugs me that all pre-Christian and non-Abrhamic religions and "magic" in general seems to always be a "trick". I'm not saying that there aren't those share of things out there. I'm also not saying that everyone feels this way, but like my Bio teacher either through ignorance or design felt it was ok to stomp on magic but quickly backtracked when people mentioned Christ and his true miracles.

Back though from the rant into what magic is. I think that magic is the manipulation of this universal energy. Whether that takes candles and spells, rituals, or just a simple thought, that is magic. I know that's a very simplistic one but I've always been a fan of keeping it simple.  

[Starlock]

Well, many scholars define magic as neccesarily false, Blindfaith, and that particularly tends to percolate into the hard sciences. If magic becomes truth, then we suddenly call it science. It makes it difficult then to study what magic really is from any perspective if you go about assuming it is by necessity false. Science is really an outgrowth of religion and religion an outgrowth of magical thinking (though this order shifts somewhat depending on how you define the said terms). There's a big culture push right now to dismiss what is considered 'irrational superstition.' That's both good and bad. Good in that science is damned important. Bad in that it's closing off minds to something that really is interesting to scrutinize. Ah well.

If magic is the manipulation of a universal energy, science is the study of magic in a way, isn't it? whee  

[blindfaith^_^]

Starlock

Well, many scholars define magic as neccesarily false, Blindfaith, and that particularly tends to percolate into the hard sciences.

Defining magic as false or as a set of unfounded beliefs is different than defining magic as something the orginated from men and women of nefarious nature who had the intentions of decieving their fellow man.

I'm not saying I expect hard sciences to acknowledge magic or even be interested in exploring its possiblilty, but let's put accurate historic context into place. Some of these people may have been con men, I suspect the majority of them were not.

Quote:

If magic is the manipulation of a universal energy, science is the study of magic in a way, isn't it? whee

In a way it certainly is, but don't tell those damn scientists talk2hand  

[Starlock]

blindfaith^_^

Quote:

If magic is the manipulation of a universal energy, science is the study of magic in a way, isn't it? whee

In a way it certainly is, but don't tell those damn scientists talk2hand

Heh, well not all of us are that closed-minded. I sometimes see it that way but that view doesn't destroy my objectivity when approaching a sittuation. Basically it means one can take learned and established scientific principles and find paralells in metaphysics. That occurs often enough one could write several books on it; I wonder if there are any? question  

[Mitsui_Aomori]

It all started with Alchemy... then it rooted out to other kinds of magic including alchemy itself...  

[blindfaith^_^]

What are your sources that explain how magic started off as alchemy? How can something start out as being itself and turn into something else and itself? Are you saying alchemy is the first form of magic, because if so I would like some sources please,