>At 04:09 PM 9/13/97 -0700, Eva-Lise Carlstrom wrote:
>
>>My understanding of what magic consists of has undergone changes.
> I
>>don't expect you to agree with my use of the term, but I don't separate
>>magic from memetics. In my view, magic is the use of symbolic and
>
>>indirect means to achieve physical, practical ends. I realize this
>>includes a lot. It's intended to. It's still less inclusive that
>
>I'm willing to accept your definition, but then you have to admit
>that magic is not supernatural and therefore comes under the domain
>of science.
Arrgh!! What's not supernatural comes under science?
What about the arts, humanities, etc? Or to get back to
first principles: how does science deal with subjectivity?
Or on another tack: an extremely large and important part
of human acivity is just the reverse of science: instead of
operating out of theory, it works on the suck-it-and-see
principle of evolution. (There's a proper name for that,
which you can find on the Principia Cybernetica site if
you're so inclined.) But there's not much of the
supernatural in suck-it-and-see, is there?
Robin