Actuarial Outpost

Actuarial Outpost (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php)
-   Surveys (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Do you consider magic demonic? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=341218)

Vorian Atreides 06-21-2019 10:37 AM

IMO, everything she does is magic.

Everything she does just turns me on.

glassy 06-21-2019 11:08 AM

Oh, Oh, Oh, it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so

ARTS 06-21-2019 11:16 AM

Do I need magical specs to see the poll? :confused:

Tarot Actuary 06-21-2019 11:39 AM

Other posters are correct to point out that the question is fairly meaningless without a good, working definition of magic. Even clarifying that OP specifically meant something numinous or extra-natural, as opposed to card tricks, doesn't get us very far (and I am making that assumption, because otherwise this thread is even sillier than it already is).

If you're interested in the study of magic (with a "k," if you like, I do not like), you won't get very far before running into the name of Alistair Crowley (whose history I'll let you research on your own), so for the sake of discussion, we could do a lot worse than to look at the working definition he used. "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." That's quite an expansive definition. Why, by that definition, the very act of willing your fingers to tip-tap out an internet post could be called an extremely magical act. Indeed, if I understand Crowley's beleifs correctly, he would very much agree with that assertion. But that would lead us to a pretty weird discussion here. Is the act of using your will to cause your body to effect change in the world "demonic?" I would be very interested in hearing from someone arguing that it is.

Vorion Atreides gets a special sticker for pointing out that we need to establish what we mean by "demonic." For most people who would ask the question, "Is magic demonic," I think we can make some assumptions about the kind of demon you're talking about, and the tradition from which that archetype comes. The question really being asked is, "Is magic evil." That's an interesting discussion on its own, but one much more broad than I feel like tackling on a lazy Friday afternoon. Trying to define "magic" is tricky. Trying to define "evil?" Above my celestial pay grade.

For one of Crowley's Golden Dawn associates, on the other hand, the question would be ridiculous. Some magic (goetic, for example), is demonic by definition, inasmuch as it deals with demons by names. Enochian magic, on the other hand, was delivered by angels, and is thus strictly angelic (unless you believe that the angels in question were actually demons dissimulating, which admittedly does sound a lot like something a demon would do). Asking "Is magic demonic" is like asking "Is actuarial science Bornhuetter-Fergusonian."

For those with less structured world views, practitioners of chaos magic for example, the question is meaningless in a different way. Some might believe that angels and demons are real, but are actually manifestations emerging from the creative power of human thoughts and fears, and anything angelic or demonic about them is likewise the result of the bias of human worldview. Others might believe that angels and demons have no external reality outside of the human imagination, but nonetheless have found that they have a certain psychic "reality" to them, and that treating these psychic ("imaginary," if you like, again, I do not) entities as if they had their own reality can help them achieve results in their spiritual journey just the same as if these entities had an independent existence. The quote you might hear: it's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is.

These are all, I should point out, summaries of pretty modern understandings of what magic is or might be. I'm sure I don't need to explain that you could slice out any decade from the past couple thousand years of western history, and find very different interpretations and ontologies that require completely different discussions on how "magic" and "demonic" should be defined.

All this to say my short answer is, "No, with an if," long answer, "Yes, with a but." If you need further solace, I have something or other by Lon Milo DuQuette in my office.

Non-Commutative Peach 06-21-2019 01:52 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Qt9VpSi.jpg http://www.mtgmintcard.com/images/mt...NG-BEEBLES.jpg http://i.imgur.com/tlDiugv.jpg

Vorian Atreides 06-21-2019 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarot Actuary (Post 9649843)
Other posters are correct to point out that the question is fairly meaningless without a good, working definition of magic. Even clarifying that OP specifically meant something numinous or extra-natural, as opposed to card tricks, doesn't get us very far (and I am making that assumption, because otherwise this thread is even sillier than it already is).

If you're interested in the study of magic (with a "k," if you like, I do not like), you won't get very far before running into the name of Alistair Crowley (whose history I'll let you research on your own), so for the sake of discussion, we could do a lot worse than to look at the working definition he used. "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." That's quite an expansive definition. Why, by that definition, the very act of willing your fingers to tip-tap out an internet post could be called an extremely magical act. Indeed, if I understand Crowley's beleifs correctly, he would very much agree with that assertion. But that would lead us to a pretty weird discussion here. Is the act of using your will to cause your body to effect change in the world "demonic?" I would be very interested in hearing from someone arguing that it is.

Vorion Atreides gets a special sticker for pointing out that we need to establish what we mean by "demonic." For most people who would ask the question, "Is magic demonic," I think we can make some assumptions about the kind of demon you're talking about, and the tradition from which that archetype comes. The question really being asked is, "Is magic evil." That's an interesting discussion on its own, but one much more broad than I feel like tackling on a lazy Friday afternoon. Trying to define "magic" is tricky. Trying to define "evil?" Above my celestial pay grade.

For one of Crowley's Golden Dawn associates, on the other hand, the question would be ridiculous. Some magic (goetic, for example), is demonic by definition, inasmuch as it deals with demons by names. Enochian magic, on the other hand, was delivered by angels, and is thus strictly angelic (unless you believe that the angels in question were actually demons dissimulating, which admittedly does sound a lot like something a demon would do). Asking "Is magic demonic" is like asking "Is actuarial science Bornhuetter-Fergusonian."

For those with less structured world views, practitioners of chaos magic for example, the question is meaningless in a different way. Some might believe that angels and demons are real, but are actually manifestations emerging from the creative power of human thoughts and fears, and anything angelic or demonic about them is likewise the result of the bias of human worldview. Others might believe that angels and demons have no external reality outside of the human imagination, but nonetheless have found that they have a certain psychic "reality" to them, and that treating these psychic ("imaginary," if you like, again, I do not) entities as if they had their own reality can help them achieve results in their spiritual journey just the same as if these entities had an independent existence. The quote you might hear: it's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is.

These are all, I should point out, summaries of pretty modern understandings of what magic is or might be. I'm sure I don't need to explain that you could slice out any decade from the past couple thousand years of western history, and find very different interpretations and ontologies that require completely different discussions on how "magic" and "demonic" should be defined.

All this to say my short answer is, "No, with an if," long answer, "Yes, with a but." If you need further solace, I have something or other by Lon Milo DuQuette in my office.

First, to clarify my request for clarification of the definition of "demonic" is also to extend to the idea that "magic(k)" is a form of "demonic control".

Second, I think King of the Hill captures Crowley's ideology and definition of magic(k) in the episode Witches of East Arlen. IMO, a fun 23 minutes (exclusive of commercials) worth of anyone's time.

Tarot Actuary 06-21-2019 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides (Post 9650162)
First, to clarify my request for clarification of the definition of "demonic" is also to extend to the idea that "magic(k)" is a form of "demonic control".

Oh, of course! Some would say the two topics are intractably linked, but again, you have to decide what you really mean by either word before you can decide if they're conceptually severable.

Quote:

Second, I think King of the Hill captures Crowley's ideology and definition of magic(k) in the episode Witches of East Arlen. IMO, a fun 23 minutes (exclusive of commercials) worth of anyone's time.
How wonderful! I haven't seen all of King of the Hill, so I didn't know about this episode.

Spoiler:

Tarot Actuary 06-21-2019 03:21 PM

:lol: Okay, that was fun. I don't find it to be particularly reminiscent of Crowley/GD type stuff. It more puts me in mind of a sort of generic LaVeyan/Left Hand Path kind of mileau.

On a side note:
https://kingofthehill.fandom.com/wik..._of_East_Arlen
Quote:

Bobby begins giving tarot readings, including one to Bill Dauterive. Bill gets The Ten of Swords card, which Bobby initially understands to denote prosperity (Bill recalls his recent romantic luck with Laoma as confirmation of this). Unfortunately, the card is upsidedown, which instead is a sign of "pain, affliction, tears, sadness, desolation." It is interesting to note that all mention of Bill's relationship with Laoma ceases after this episode.
Hopefully this gives pause to those of you who doubt the efficacy of tarot.

Entropy 06-21-2019 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper07734 (Post 9649190)
I don't know about demonic, but, any attempt to invoke superstitions/the supernatural that is inconsistent with my faith's fundamental theology is a no from me, dawg (other than if done for entertainment/in jest).

ETA: Not to be construed as invalidating other major faith's theologies. I'm talking about horoscope/witchcraft/ouija board/cultist $#!+.

Does "theology" automatically not include "magic" then? Why wouldn't you consider them to be "demonic"? Just trying to understand which religions/theologies you'll make fun of. Scientology fair game?

Jasper07734 06-21-2019 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropy (Post 9650306)
Does "theology" automatically not include "magic" then? Why wouldn't you consider them to be "demonic"? Just trying to understand which religions/theologies you'll make fun of. Scientology fair game?

I will make fun of the ones that aren't mine, obviously. :co:

Scientology is a cult, so it is always fair game.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Page generated in 0.26664 seconds with 9 queries