Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't forget Harry Potter

[bobmax]

bobmax wrote:

Magic cannot be rational.

In this case it could be.

All they had to do was dig.

If you dig what you find it is rational, not magical.

Because the magic is irrational.

Magic cannot be found, because it cannot be proved.
It stands on the border beyond the rational.

[Dontaskme]

bobmax wrote:

Magic cannot be rational.

In this case it could be.

All they had to do was dig.

If you dig what you find it is rational, not magical.

Because the magic is irrational.

Magic cannot be found, because it cannot be proved.
It stands on the border beyond the rational.

The only magic is nothing is everything.

And that nothing cannot be understood except as everything.


The only logic here is irrationality.

[Maia]

Maia wrote:

With respect, it is clear that you know very little about magic

As a small child I read Alice in Wonderland.

That's a bit of a non sequitur.

[Sculptor]

That's not magic. It's a debasement of the term.

Only a deluded person would say that.

Or maybe someone who has studied history, folklore and mythology. When Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote of Merlin, for example, was he thinking of someone who got up on stage and pulled rabbits out of hats?

I've got a Masters in History.
Geoffrey of Monmouth had very limited evidence and sources and a believe system not based on reason or science.
Such limits on evidence led such bizarre claims as the foundation of Briton to Brutus of Troy, and compatrito of Aeneas for example.
Others talked about such things as "there be giants here", and other such bullshite.
It is highly unlikely that anyone called Merlin even existed, let alone perform magic.

Since Geoffrey of Monmouth post dates the Venerable Bede, you might want to ask why Bede said nothing about Arthur, any of his knights, or Merlin.
THe fact is the the whole Arthurian myth was a propaganda campaign but the in-coming Normans to have a heros which unified the people of Britain by making false claims about the ownership of Britain, being connected with France and to marginalise the Saxon invasion as an anathema.

But aside from that magic is not real.

[Sculptor]

Boogie is related to woogie.

When a magnetic force boogies, iron woogies.

More boogie means more woogie means more cowbell.

And do you have a point?

By point, you must mean, have I drawn a conclusion from these facts?
Well, must I do everything?

You're a big fella.
Draw you own conclusions and share, if you must.

For now, I'm mulling these facts that have been revealed to us.
So are other folks. Mulling, that is.
There's no rush.

Let's see if these facts ring any bells other than foot stomping demands for an encore, which is all I'm hearing so far, from you.

If you presented any facts they are not evident.
You seem to be struggling with a sense of reality.
I imagine that as the primaries approach your cognitive dissonance concerning the Bigfatorangebabyman is getting to you.

[Maia]

Only a deluded person would say that.

Or maybe someone who has studied history, folklore and mythology. When Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote of Merlin, for example, was he thinking of someone who got up on stage and pulled rabbits out of hats?

I've got a Masters in History.
Geoffrey of Monmouth had very limited evidence and sources and a believe system not based on reason or science.
Such limits on evidence led such bizarre claims as the foundation of Briton to Brutus of Troy, and compatrito of Aeneas for example.
Others talked about such things as "there be giants here", and other such bullshite.
It is highly unlikely that anyone called Merlin even existed, let alone perform magic.

Since Geoffrey of Monmouth post dates the Venerable Bede, you might want to ask why Bede said nothing about Arthur, any of his knights, or Merlin.
THe fact is the the whole Arthurian myth was a propaganda campaign but the in-coming Normans to have a heros which unified the people of Britain by making false claims about the ownership of Britain, being connected with France and to marginalise the Saxon invasion as an anathema.

But aside from that magic is not real.

And I have an A-level in Archaeology, if we're trading qualifications.

Merlin derives from a Welsh figure named Myrddin, which is also why Bede ignored him, since he was interested mainly in the Anglo-Saxons. I agree that the later Arthurian cycle was very much Norman influenced, and not only Norman, but also French in general. It is based, however, on Welsh myth, plus a load of stuff about the Holy Grail, but that's a whole other conspiracy theory.

[Sculptor]

Or maybe someone who has studied history, folklore and mythology. When Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote of Merlin, for example, was he thinking of someone who got up on stage and pulled rabbits out of hats?

I've got a Masters in History.
Geoffrey of Monmouth had very limited evidence and sources and a believe system not based on reason or science.
Such limits on evidence led such bizarre claims as the foundation of Briton to Brutus of Troy, and compatrito of Aeneas for example.
Others talked about such things as "there be giants here", and other such bullshite.
It is highly unlikely that anyone called Merlin even existed, let alone perform magic.

Since Geoffrey of Monmouth post dates the Venerable Bede, you might want to ask why Bede said nothing about Arthur, any of his knights, or Merlin.
THe fact is the the whole Arthurian myth was a propaganda campaign but the in-coming Normans to have a heros which unified the people of Britain by making false claims about the ownership of Britain, being connected with France and to marginalise the Saxon invasion as an anathema.

But aside from that magic is not real.

And I have an A-level in Archaeology, if we're trading qualifications.

Merlin derives from a Welsh figure named Myrddin, which is also why Bede ignored him, since he was interested mainly in the Anglo-Saxons. I agree that the later Arthurian cycle was very much Norman influenced, and not only Norman, but also French in general. It is based, however, on Welsh myth, plus a load of stuff about the Holy Grail, but that's a whole other conspiracy theory.

It's called myth and magic is called myth too.
I suppose you are going to say that dragons exist next?

[Maia]

I've got a Masters in History.
Geoffrey of Monmouth had very limited evidence and sources and a believe system not based on reason or science.
Such limits on evidence led such bizarre claims as the foundation of Briton to Brutus of Troy, and compatrito of Aeneas for example.
Others talked about such things as "there be giants here", and other such bullshite.
It is highly unlikely that anyone called Merlin even existed, let alone perform magic.

Since Geoffrey of Monmouth post dates the Venerable Bede, you might want to ask why Bede said nothing about Arthur, any of his knights, or Merlin.
THe fact is the the whole Arthurian myth was a propaganda campaign but the in-coming Normans to have a heros which unified the people of Britain by making false claims about the ownership of Britain, being connected with France and to marginalise the Saxon invasion as an anathema.

But aside from that magic is not real.

And I have an A-level in Archaeology, if we're trading qualifications.

Merlin derives from a Welsh figure named Myrddin, which is also why Bede ignored him, since he was interested mainly in the Anglo-Saxons. I agree that the later Arthurian cycle was very much Norman influenced, and not only Norman, but also French in general. It is based, however, on Welsh myth, plus a load of stuff about the Holy Grail, but that's a whole other conspiracy theory.

It's called myth and magic is called myth too.
I suppose you are going to say that dragons exist next?

Magic and myth a separate fields of study, though often overlap, of course. Specifically, myths often talk of magic, and conversely, magic often uses myth as a form of symbolism.

Dragons are usually interpreted as symbolising the spirals of energy in the earth.

[Sculptor]

And I have an A-level in Archaeology, if we're trading qualifications.

Merlin derives from a Welsh figure named Myrddin, which is also why Bede ignored him, since he was interested mainly in the Anglo-Saxons. I agree that the later Arthurian cycle was very much Norman influenced, and not only Norman, but also French in general. It is based, however, on Welsh myth, plus a load of stuff about the Holy Grail, but that's a whole other conspiracy theory.

It's called myth and magic is called myth too.
I suppose you are going to say that dragons exist next?

Magic and myth a separate fields of study, though often overlap, of course. Specifically, myths often talk of magic, and conversely, magic often uses myth as a form of symbolism.

Dragons are usually interpreted as symbolising the spirals of energy in the earth.

Magic is a Myth.
The serious study of Myth is the realm of anthropology, and includes magic.

[Maia]

It's called myth and magic is called myth too.
I suppose you are going to say that dragons exist next?

Magic and myth a separate fields of study, though often overlap, of course. Specifically, myths often talk of magic, and conversely, magic often uses myth as a form of symbolism.

Dragons are usually interpreted as symbolising the spirals of energy in the earth.

Magic is a Myth.
The serious study of Myth is the realm of anthropology, and includes magic.

I wonder how many of those anthropologists who claim that magic is a myth have ever practiced it?

[Iwannaplato]

Magic and myth a separate fields of study, though often overlap, of course. Specifically, myths often talk of magic, and conversely, magic often uses myth as a form of symbolism.

Dragons are usually interpreted as symbolising the spirals of energy in the earth.

Magic is a Myth.
The serious study of Myth is the realm of anthropology, and includes magic.

I wonder how many of those anthropologists who claim that magic is a myth have ever practiced it?

There are anthropologists who took on certain beliefs, including those that are considered supernatural. I can remember one book about someone who joined the !Kung in their healing rituals and others who joined various ceremonies using psychoative plants in South America who went on to consider the beliefs and practices of the groups they studied both valid and useful.

I'd say it is always a 'risk' or opportunity with anthropology since to understand, you have to participate as much as you can and are allowed. And this can be vastly more convincing then reading about something on a screen or a book.

[Maia]

Magic is a Myth.
The serious study of Myth is the realm of anthropology, and includes magic.

I wonder how many of those anthropologists who claim that magic is a myth have ever practiced it?

There are anthropologists who took on certain beliefs, including those that are considered supernatural. I can remember one book about someone who joined the !Kung in their healing rituals and others who joined various ceremonies using psychoative plants in South America who went on to consider the beliefs and practices of the groups they studied both valid and useful.

I'd say it is always a 'risk' or opportunity with anthropology since to understand, you have to participate as much as you can and are allowed. And this can be vastly more convincing then reading about something on a screen or a book.

As I always say, to experience something is to know it.

[Iwannaplato]

I wonder how many of those anthropologists who claim that magic is a myth have ever practiced it?

There are anthropologists who took on certain beliefs, including those that are considered supernatural. I can remember one book about someone who joined the !Kung in their healing rituals and others who joined various ceremonies using psychoative plants in South America who went on to consider the beliefs and practices of the groups they studied both valid and useful.

I'd say it is always a 'risk' or opportunity with anthropology since to understand, you have to participate as much as you can and are allowed. And this can be vastly more convincing then reading about something on a screen or a book.

As I always say, to experience something is to know it.

Which seems to often not be understood in online forums. Here it is generally assumed that one can understand anything true by reading words on a screen. But I'm with Dewey and you.....

[Maia]

There are anthropologists who took on certain beliefs, including those that are considered supernatural. I can remember one book about someone who joined the !Kung in their healing rituals and others who joined various ceremonies using psychoative plants in South America who went on to consider the beliefs and practices of the groups they studied both valid and useful.

I'd say it is always a 'risk' or opportunity with anthropology since to understand, you have to participate as much as you can and are allowed. And this can be vastly more convincing then reading about something on a screen or a book.

As I always say, to experience something is to know it.

Which seems to often not be understood in online forums. Here it is generally assumed that one can understand anything true by reading words on a screen. But I'm with Dewey and you.....

Can you describe the pic, please?