From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #330 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, October 18 2002 Volume 11 : Number 330 Today's Subjects: ----------------- what's a paisley & hail, ira robbins ["ross taylor" ] More radio play! ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Stew & Rew [Brian ] so much rope [drew ] Re: #329 [Eb ] Re: #328 [Miles Goosens ] Re: #328 [Ken Weingold ] Re: #328 [Miles Goosens ] Re: religion is magic [gSs ] Re: magic/Guadalcanal Diary/Paisley Underground [grutness@surf4nix.com (J] Soft Boys at Amoeba SF Nov. 3 ["Usuigi Nightingale" ] Re: magic/Guadalcanal Diary/Paisley Underground [Aaron Mandel Subject: what's a paisley & hail, ira robbins The idea of Paisley Underground = L.A. sounds right, but there was lots of stuff I feel was associated, & a pretty broad spectrum. Green on Red were pretty harsh but Rain Parade sometimes were like 70s L.A. pop. On the harsh side I think of Dream Syndicate & Chesterfield Kings. Seems like it's got a lot to do w/ '66 and the Lyres were all '66, but they seem too punk. Also Human Switchboard -- they were great! I never got their studio record, just the live "Coffe Break" set. I guess the real P.U. tended to be later, like 1983-1987? Around "Fables of the Reconstruction" REM almost sounded like a paisley band that had escaped the underground. Who did the song "The Boy in the Paisley Shirt"? K.O.-- >they've relaunched the site by the way: >http://www.trouserpress.com/ Yaaay! Ross Taylor "my my this war dance a patriotic romance" -- XTC Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:19:52 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: REM and Love defiled once more REM-clonery continued: Another major offender, and major guilty pleasure of mine, was... Miracle Legion. In my defense, my favorite stuff by them was the least REM-y. But I DID specify "guilty pleasure", so please be kind. Live must surely be among the lamer bands ever. They are far more REM wanna-be's than clones, if that distinction is clear... and I did once mistake their then-new single for a new REM song when I heard it on the radio. It was between Hi-Fi and Up, and I assumed it was one of REM's many cast-off outtake soundtrack album tracks from that era, and therefore subpar, but it was still a relief to find out it was good ol' reliably lame-ass Live instead. And how 'bout Remy Zero, who seem to me an even more humorless offshoot of Live's humorless take on REM-ery? At least before they tried to become the American Radiohead. Yeah. That's what we need. An American Radiohead. I still like newer REM and I don't consider that one all that guilty of a pleasure. Reveal was a slight letdown, but not a fatal one. __________ Matt (quoting the Sub-Busker): >>"this is a song by a band from the sixties that recently reformed because the >>singer, called Albert or Alfred or something like that, recently got out of prison. >>Anyway, this is their only good song..." You shoulda killed him. Even if he had mananged to pull out the name Arthur, it must be reiterated, for hopefully the LAST TIME-- say it with me: "Alone Again Or" was written by BRIAN MACLEAN. (At least he didn't attribute it to the Damned, as do a number of Goth-types I have known.) Then again, if you had killed him, you woulda missed that set, which woulda been a greater crime. Wow. - -Rex (off to get me some Side 3) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:37:45 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: REM and Love defiled once more - -- "Rex.Broome" is rumored to have mumbled on Donnerstag, 17. Oktober 2002 10:19 Uhr -0700 regarding REM and Love defiled once more: > I still like newer REM and I don't consider that one all that guilty of a > pleasure. Reveal was a slight letdown, but not a fatal one. I think it's *much* better than Up. I really don't understand why it sold so badly. There are lots of songs I really love and a few I don't care about. It may actually be my favorite R.E.M. since AFTP ... - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:57:49 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: magic >A better analogy would be science and magic are as closely related as a >power station and lightning, or an irrigation system and a stream. Not at all. If anything, lightning and the stream could be seen as representing the "natural world," not magic, and the power station and irrigation systems would still be symbolizing science and technology. A more accurate representation of magic would be to say something like: "magicians" view the lightning as a mean ghost targeting naughty children or the stream as having mood swings, depending on the season. Lightning may be real, and it may strike small children occasionally, but not because of the sky-spirits are angry at the kid. A stream may overflow, but not because it, being a deity, is upset with the lack of proper human sacrifices thrown into it annually. >Magic is an attempt via the studying of the natural world to make sense of >it, and to apply those things learned to enable changes within the world. >It is a discovery of whatever rules are used by the universe, and an >application of those rules that are applicable, and an acceptance of all >the others. Hardly. "Magic" is more like lazily glancing around the natural world, making assumptions about the viewed reality without experiment or evidence, accepting and clinging to those assumptions, inventing "laws" and "rituals" based upon those assumptions, applying these hypotheses without rhyme or reason and failing to discard or update them, regardless of any new evidence and more substantial theories that may arise. >Other skills which have, at times past, been regarded as "magic" in >different cultures include hypnotism, acupuncture, and aromatherapy. The >first of these has gained widespread acceptance by the medical community, >and the latter two are slowly increasing in acceptance. With these last two, you are already making the assumption that there is something worthwhile to accept, perhaps something more interesting or effective than sugar-pills. And, if one regards these "skills" as working because of some sort of "spiritual force," something magical, then that person is reaching their conclusion without "studying... the natural world." Unless of course they have some substantial experimental evidence to suggest that something like "spirit" is having an effect on our reality. If a technique does work, as with hypnotism, there is probably a good, scientific reason why this is so - and then it isn't magic at all. Some uninformed, under-educated people may regard it, or your computer or an airplane, as "magic," because they have their own unscientific ideas about how it works. You and I and other more informed persons using the term "magic" in this sense just dilutes all meaning from it. We know that hypnotism, iMacs and 747s are not the result of telepathy, silicon elemental spirits or supernatural levitation. Regarding something as "magic" is in no way the same as it actually being "magical." Acupuncture may actually work for some reason, but the magical EXPLANATION of how and why, chi and all that jazz, might be way off-base, or completely wrong. And, that's when you get into big problems, when people believe the assumed, unproven explanation, and are then faced with a thousand other ancient Chinese magical remedies that don't do jack. If one takes aspirin thinking the little God of the Pill will realign your chakras and make your headache go away, the aspirin will still work, despite this person's ignorance of what is really going on. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:57:48 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: More radio play! Just heard "Mr. Kennedy" on Morning Becomes Eclectic right now, right next to Kim Richey, interestingly enough. Nic Harcourt's really supporting the record. He even put it on his "Top 10" for the month in his KCRW's monthly membership mailer (although oddly it was credited to "The Softboys"). Encouraging because you can hardly go two weeks in LA without reading an article about how Harcourt is "the most influential radio programmer and tastemaker of all time ever in the universe" or some such. He leans a little hard on the Travis/Coldplay/Starsailor school of weepy britpop for my tastes, but he sure does get a lot of virtually ignored yet vital artists on the air, so far be it from me to gripe. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:11:01 -0400 From: Brian Subject: Re: Stew & Rew At Thursday, 17 October 2002, Rex wrote: >Really enjoyed the K. Rew disc. Kinda surprised at the sound of his voice as a lead vocalist! Opening this up for discussion... I thought it was interesting to read on the Katrina and the Waves website that Kim Rew was asked to join the dB's after Chris Stamey left. I for one think he would've been a great replacement/addition. He has a similar voice. It is a strong matter of opinion that the 1st 2 dB's records were far better than anything else they ever did (without Stamey). It would've been interesting to have half the song credits on "Like This" be Holsapple, and the other half Rew. - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:41:51 -0700 From: drew Subject: so much rope > From: rosso@videotron.ca > > Tabs are more on-topic than religion or movies. Let's keep them on- > list so people who are casually interested can participate. I'd agree. > From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > > [Live] > Gawd - one of the worst bands ever. Pretty dire stuff, yeah, though I have to admit to liking "Lightning Crashes." I guess the question of whether they ripped off "late R.E.M." would depend on the definition of "late" -- their first album showed up in '91 and it doesn't seem like their sound has changed significantly. The All-Music entry seems pretty correct as far as the horrifying lineup of "Similar Artists" (Collective Soul, The Verve Pipe, Creed, Everclear) and the "Roots and Influences" (though Peter Gabriel, Sting, and R.E.M. are mentioned, I think the big culprit in there is U2). As for magic vs. science -- the definitions offered for magic so far seem awfully self-serving to me. I'm pretty sure that by "magic" we mean something more general than primitive meteorology, self-induced trances, psychic phenomena (which cease to be referred to as magic when people actually study them, you'll note), and acupuncture. Magic takes as axiomatic a certain uncertainty; this works, but not for any reason we can explain, and only sometimes -- that's magic. Magic can be "good enough" to describe some phenomena until science comes along to do the hard work, but that doesn't mean that all magic is just science waiting to happen or that all science used to be magic. Science at its heart is just a way of thinking about the world: observe, theorize, conclude. Any "magic" that mimics that might just be bad (or improving) science. > From: MSewell@oxfam.org.uk > Subject: A long ramble in Winchester That sounds *great*. I hope we get some of these song choices as well. Drew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:58:21 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: #329 >From: Sebastian Hagedorn > > > Anyone remember the Kilkenny Cats? They're the most blatant offender that >> I can recall, right now. > >I only know that one track on "Athens Inside-Out". They had an album on Coyote, the same label which had some Feelies and Yo La Tengo stuff. I used to have a copy. It was Murmur Revisited, through and through. I can't remember if I ever saw the Cats perform. Probably did. There was also an album (or was it an EP?) on the sadly forgotten Texas Hotel label. >From: MSewell@oxfam.org.uk > >oh no, they play >Vegetable Man. By this point I'm just blown away. Yet again, they treat us >to something I thought I'd never hear them play. There's a chance that I had something to do with this. ;) >From: "Rex.Broome" > >Partially because his voice is SO grating? I can really only listen to the >6ths for just that reason. But his ultra-thin, mega-sterile production >doesn't help either. It's just a mystery. I don't mind his voice so much...for me, it's more about the bargain-basement synthesizer patches, which would sound stale and tacky even if it *was* still the '80s. The melodies are pretty trite and indifferent, as well. But then you get images like in the FBH album's first track: "I'd rather be the queen at the guillotine/in a bloody resurrection/than be losing your affection." "I'd rather be the frog speaking Tagalog/as they start the vivisection/than be losing your affection." Ha. Great fun. >But I still like GD as a guilty >pleasure. I'd love to lay hands on some of their pre-"2X4" stuff but it's >always outrageously overpriced when I find it. I've seen various Guadalcanal Diary-related auctions/inquiries online over the years -- it amazes me that the band still generates this much interest. I have the first three albums on near-mint vinyl (plus Flip-Flop on CD) -- I guess I'll cash in one day, when I decide there's no point anymore in having records which I haven't pulled out in 10-15 years. Sing-Sing wasn't too exciting last night, as predicted. If you don't know, this band was started by Emma Anderson, the former second banana of Lush. The sound is similar, but less wispy and with a much stronger electronic element. They all wore whiiiiite, and Anderson's new collaborator/singer looked like a cross between Siouxsie posing as an Icelandic stewardess and a gothic Jessica Harper. Somewhat depressingly, the joint was only about a third full. I hated myself for arriving late though, because I saw about three minutes of the opening band Venus Hum and really wished I had heard more. Obviously descended from the Cocteau Twins (even down to the two tech geeks + songbird personnel), but the singer was absolutely *adorable* to watch. She whirls and swoons and throws her arms in the air like she's in some '50s musical -- I was utterly charmed at her innocence. Then I looked them up on the web, and discovered they're from *Nashville*?? On the other hand, I later played some CDNow soundclips from their album, and these were much more uptempo and just as queasily '80s-synthetic as Merritt...oh well. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:05:24 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: #328 At 11:31 AM 10/17/2002 +0200, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: >> Actually, Yo La Tengo somewhat seemed like a REM >> clone back then, though they obviously evolved in a different direction. > >Hmm, possibly on "Ride The Tiger", but already "New Wave Hot Dog" doesn't >sound like R.E.M. at all. The Feelies used to claim the YLT were derivative >of *them* ... ;-) > >> Eb (let's not forget the glorious Feelies) > >Sure, but obviously "Crazy Rhythms" precedes R.E.M. and has often been >cited as an influence. The Feelies -> Yo La Tengo line's antecedent pretty clearly isn't R.E.M. (especially since, as Sebastian just points out, the Feelies precede R.E.M.). Rather, it's the strongest line of descent from the Velvet Underground, especially the third-album/1969 LIVE/LOADED iteration. Sure, more bands than you can count have been inspired by the VU, but the Feelies and YLT seem to be the purest strain, both in sound and spirit. And what Jeffrey said about Live, both in contemptuousness and about their specific lineage. And put a shirt on, Ed! later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:17:51 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: #328 On Thu, Oct 17, 2002, Miles Goosens wrote: > The Feelies -> Yo La Tengo line's antecedent pretty clearly isn't R.E.M. > (especially since, as Sebastian just points out, the Feelies precede > R.E.M.). Rather, it's the strongest line of descent from the Velvet > Underground, especially the third-album/1969 LIVE/LOADED iteration. Sure, > more bands than you can count have been inspired by the VU, but the Feelies > and YLT seem to be the purest strain, both in sound and spirit. Oh, Miles. How about Luna? I saw them open for Lou Reed once and for their last song, Lou came out and they all did Ride Into The Sun together. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:42:43 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: #328 At 04:17 PM 10/17/2002 -0400, Ken Weingold wrote: >On Thu, Oct 17, 2002, Miles Goosens wrote: >> The Feelies -> Yo La Tengo line's antecedent pretty clearly isn't R.E.M. >> (especially since, as Sebastian just points out, the Feelies precede >> R.E.M.). Rather, it's the strongest line of descent from the Velvet >> Underground, especially the third-album/1969 LIVE/LOADED iteration. Sure, >> more bands than you can count have been inspired by the VU, but the Feelies >> and YLT seem to be the purest strain, both in sound and spirit. > >Oh, Miles. How about Luna? I saw them open for Lou Reed once and for >their last song, Lou came out and they all did Ride Into The Sun >together. Sin of omission. They belong on this line too, of the same generation as YLT. Again, pretty straight VU, probably even more so than YLT. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:47:31 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: religion is magic > > ...it must have been that ratiocinated magic that people call science. ratiocinated magic is an oxymoron. religion and magic are directly related, like the chicken and the egg. magic and religion are the inverse of science and logic. they contradict each other for good reason. acupuncture, hypnosis, chiropractic care, aromatherapy, and even herbal medicine to a degree can be effective healthcare practices. the body itself is capable of overcoming a great variety of ailments if the mind is in the right. but this is not magic, it is biology. all of which is based on the laws of physics. none of this is the result of wizards or witches or demons or ghosts or some new ornamentally modernized higher-power for whom the ill-informed have started another religion. it is all physics and very simple to understand. there is nothing magical or religious about any of it and the same applies to everything else, at least here, now, in this part of the time-space continuum. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:35:39 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: magic/Guadalcanal Diary/Paisley Underground >> Traditional "witchcraft" took two main forms - one was an ability to >> predict the natural events such as weather by studying the world, and the >> other was medicine, by means of studying the sick person (including their >> mental health, often through their dreams), and by means of potions made >> from available plant and animal sources. Anything more than that was a >> later add-on. Many of the former skills are still used by meteorologists, >> many of the latter are used, or being rediscovered by, modern health >> researchers. > >But you're narrowing the definition of "magic" to encompass only those >aspects that are relatively close to scientific procedures (discovery, >reasoning, application). Most definitions also include, for example, the >notion that some people have particular insights into the world not >available through the traditional senses, or the ability to do things or >cause things to happen which are inexplicable within the laws of physics, >etc. But that doesn't mean that you have to include every daffy thing that people think is involved in all aspects of magic into a definition of the traditional aspects of magic as actually practiced. Of course many people have thought some people have peculiar insights. Do you think your average tribal priest, for example, would want the rest of the tribe knowing that it was all perfectly natural and anyone could do it? Of course not - he'd be out of a job. There is nothing inexplicable about the core features of magical practice. Many definitions do include 'supernatural gifts', and if you want to include them in your definition, feel free. But it's analogous to me having said "I like animals", Greg having said "the mosquito is nasty", and me saying "yes, but I like cats". Cats are animals, so my original statement still holds. >Furthermore, there is often (though not always) a spiritual component to >the notion of magic (particularly connected with the first distinction I >draw above) that is absent in science. Is it? Have you read any Stephen Hawking lately? The further into mnany branches of science you get, the more spiritual the realms into which you are heading, and the more likely - not less - the practitioners are to have a feeling for the infinite (which is simply another form of spirituality). >magic and science are >fundamentally different. Science seeks understanding within reason and to >integrate new knowledge with what is already known or seems reasonable; >magic (as the term is usually used) is hardly so systemic, nor does it >need to be based in logic or reason. but it usually is. Sure, it has not been so systematic, mainly because systems of classification are the one great advance that science has made possible, and much magic is older than such classification allowed. In reality, science and magic are very closely allied. >I'm sure there are some believers in magic who do narrow the definition in >the way you suggest - but the fact that their claims and beliefs have not, >despite years of attempts to do so, been verified in any scientific way >suggests that they're less interested in the sorts of reasoning that you >describe I pointed out a number of ways in which they have, or are gradually becoming so. Let's add some more to the list. The following all got their start in magic: acupuncture, hypnotism, alchemy (from which much modern medicine developed), psychoanalysis, naturopathy, physiotherapy, astronomy, meditation. >Try this: > >If science is irrigating when you need water from the >distant stream, then magic is collecting the round >stones that weep in the stream and putting them >in your cooking pot. > >Sometimes you leave the pot outside and it rains. When >there's water to cook your gruel, you crow about it. >Whenever there isn't, you make excuses. You never >reconsider your original assumption. > >By the time your great-great-grandchildren are eating >their uncooked gruel there is an impressive library >on the selection and positioning of the stones and how >to make them sad. If science is irrigating when you need water from the distant stream, magic is getting a bucket of water from the stream. Sometimes you leave the pot outside and it rains. You are grateful for this, and use that water rather than collecting water from the stream. You learn to notice when it is likely to rain, and when you will need to travel to the stream. You also notice that when it doesn't rain for a long time, the stream dries up. You feel there is a connection, but cannot tell which is cause and effect. With science, you irrigate, and don't need to notice when it rains. On those occasions when the stream dries up, you look for a way to make sure it doesn't happen again. - --- This conversation has got thoroughly out of hand. All I said was that I was less than iimpressed with trick or treating. Since I've just received a copy of NDL (thanks Mike!) I'd far rather be talking about that. >Guadalcanal Diary addendum: I always thought they sounded just like REM >would sound if Mills always sang lead. And then Out of Time came out and >"Texarkana" proved it beyond a doubt. But I still like GD as a guilty >pleasure. I'd love to lay hands on some of their pre-"2X4" stuff but it's >always outrageously overpriced when I find it. ? I've never seen anything post 2x4! "Walking in the shadow of the big man" was the only one of theirs I thought was that worthwhile (although one or two tracks from 2x4 weren't too bad). Oh, and while think of what is and isn't Paisley Underground, a couple of kiwi bands occasionally got tagged with that label too (notably Sneaky Feelings). oh, and Kay "who can never spell that band" - try remembering that apart from that first U, all the vowels are 'a's. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:52:00 -0000 From: "Usuigi Nightingale" Subject: Soft Boys at Amoeba SF Nov. 3 Hey gang, found myself at Amoeba Records (San Francisco) last night and discovered the following announcement plastered all over the store (not verbatim :)): The Soft Boys are doing an in-store appearance at Amoeba Records on Haight Street in San Francisco on Sunday, Nov. 3 at 2pm. this is the day after their Sat. nite show at Slims in SF on the 2nd. i normally have to be at work on 2:30 on sundays, but chances are i will call in late/sick to catch this. i will also be at the show on Saturday night. hope to see some of you at either place! Eclipse - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eclipse eclipse@tuliphead.com Kindness towards all things is the true religion. - Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:18:04 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: A HOT ticket http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1390513504 _________________________________________________________________ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:17:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: magic/Guadalcanal Diary/Paisley Underground On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, James Dignan wrote: > Let's add some more to the list. The following all got their start in > magic: acupuncture, hypnotism, alchemy (from which much modern medicine > developed), psychoanalysis, naturopathy, physiotherapy, astronomy, > meditation. This doesn't say anything about the claim that believers in magic aren't interested in paying attention to whether their beliefs bear fruit empirically. Modern chemistry evolved from alchemy over SEVERAL CENTURIES. The vast majority of people fucking around with alchemy were wasting their time until it became common knowledge how to put together a proper experiment. Did any significant number of people apply rational analysis to magical beliefs that they *themselves* held, as you (James) seem to be implying, or did we just finally get people who saw farther than others by standing on the shoulders of dwarves? a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:00:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: magic/Guadalcanal Diary/Paisley Underground On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, James Dignan wrote: > >But you're narrowing the definition of "magic" to encompass only those > >aspects that are relatively close to scientific procedures > > But that doesn't mean that you have to include every daffy thing that > people think is involved in all aspects of magic into a definition of the > traditional aspects of magic as actually practiced. At this point, I suppose, it would be useful for you to provide an example of "traditional aspects of magic as actually practiced" - magic that worked, and that was not accidentally a use of something later discovered to be wholly explicable scientifically. I drop a rock from a tree, and every time I do so it falls. I might believe this is so because rocks, being of the earth, have some earth-magic property inherent in them, and that other things that fall also have that same property, whereas birds fly because they have air-magic inherent in them - and I guess you couldn't prove me wrong, because rocks *do* fall every time they're dropped. But just because I don't know the scientific reason why, that doesn't mean there is no such explanation or that my "magic" explanation is true. > Of course many people > have thought some people have peculiar insights. Do you think your average > tribal priest, for example, would want the rest of the tribe knowing that > it was all perfectly natural and anyone could do it? Of course not - he'd > be out of a job. There is nothing inexplicable about the core features of > magical practice. Again...an example? I wouldn't deny that mystification cannot coexist with the perfectly natural and explicable - but I'd deny the first as necessary component of science. But it does seem to be a necessary component of the tribal priest's job - as you say. > >Furthermore, there is often (though not always) a spiritual component to > >the notion of magic (particularly connected with the first distinction I > >draw above) that is absent in science. > > Is it? Have you read any Stephen Hawking lately? The further into mnany > branches of science you get, the more spiritual the realms into which you > are heading, and the more likely - not less - the practitioners are to have > a feeling for the infinite (which is simply another form of spirituality). I think I'll emphasize my parenthetical comment and note that what I meant by "spiritual component" is that magic (often) asserts that some people are sensitives, mediums, yadda yadda. Science makes no such distinction: anyone can do the experiment; in fact, if it's possible, a robot can do the experiment. An experiment to test or verify a scientific claim is not dependent upon who's conducting the experiment (so long as the procedure is correctly carried out). This does not seem to be the case with much magic. But then again, I don't know what definition of "magic" you're using - or how, given what that definition appears to be, it's not just scientific procedure under a pre-scientific guise. I still think you can't define away a huge, broadly accepted definition of a term to fit some preferred belief of what that term should mean. I don't doubt that some pre-scientific practitioners of what they regarded as magic may well have followed what became scientific procedure - but that doesn't make "magic" the same as science, or the latter a subcategory of the former. It means only that the sorts of reasoning eventually codified as "the scientific method" preexisted that codification. > >I'm sure there are some believers in magic who do narrow the definition in > >the way you suggest - but the fact that their claims and beliefs have not, > >despite years of attempts to do so, been verified in any scientific way > >suggests that they're less interested in the sorts of reasoning that you > >describe > > I pointed out a number of ways in which they have, or are gradually > becoming so. Let's add some more to the list. The following all got their > start in magic: acupuncture, hypnotism, alchemy (from which much modern > medicine developed), psychoanalysis, naturopathy, physiotherapy, astronomy, > meditation. Which proves...what, exactly? Any practice that (cliche alert) arises from a paradigm shift does not throw out entirely that which preceded it: it takes what is adaptable, modifies that which can be modified into workable form, and discards what has not such utility. I could go through your list and note also aspects of each practice that have descended not into science but into rank idiocy. (And acupuncture, hypnotism in some forms, psychoanalysis, naturopathy, and meditation have not necessarily become unequivocably assimilated into the scientific paradigm: acupuncture and naturopathy are vehemently opposed by many, in fact, and are regarded as examples of charlatanism by not a few of those opposed.) Kay's post seems to conflate metaphorical, figurative uses of the term "magic" with more limited uses (which for lack of better word I'll call "literal" and tell all the poststructuralists to wait outside). Yes, it's "magic" when a song appears, apparently unbidden, in a musician's head...but that it's a musician's head, and not a politician's or a brain surgeon's, suggests that it's a little less magical and a lot more unconscious, resulting from years of practice, training, and predisposition. I don't want to be read as imagining that every last every can be reduced to a series of equations (if only because even if that were true, the equations would be so complex and so unique to situation that they'd have no more utility than our less scientific, more holistic approaches to, say, falling in love or making a sculpture). It also seems that the loosest possible standards of acceptance are applied to that which one wants to believe in (here, magic) - i.e., "perhaps it's unstable and that's why it doesn't show up scientifically." I think people often imagine that "science" is a thing that names and describes everything and doesn't admit of the nameless or undescribed: that's incorrect; there's plenty science readily admits it doesn't know or understand. But it refuses to rest there, give the unknown a name, and pretend that such naming is the same as understanding. (e.g.: problems or gaps in evolutionary biology seized upon by creationists aren't really any sort of disproof of evolution; they're, uh, problems and gaps. Or because science doesn't answer "what came before the Big Bang?" that doesn't mean the theory's incorrect. Religion says, "God did," and thereby *names* something...but explains it no more than saying "we don't know" does, and with less honesty.) Okay, enough with the paragraphs already. I like _Nextdoorland_. Robyn's eyebrow(s) is/are intriguing. I like beer, too. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Oxygen isn't a text:: __David Robbins__ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #330 ********************************