From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #331 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 331 Today's Subjects: ----------------- VU-->Lou Reed-->Feelies-->Luna ["Marc Holden" ] Re: VU-->Lou Reed-->Feelies-->Luna [Sebastian Hagedorn ] You can't be that cryptic, Eb... ["matt sewell" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #330 [birdpoo@btinternet.com] Re: magic (long - please skip) [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: magic (shortish - please skip) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Magic ["Montauk Daisy" ] Re:Magic ["Montauk Daisy" ] Re: magic (long - please skip) [Aaron Mandel ] Howdy, Pardoner! (junkmedia interview) ["ross taylor" Subject: VU-->Lou Reed-->Feelies-->Luna >>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. The original line-up for Luna included the Feelies drummer, Stanley Demeski. The first two times I saw them (Feelies), they were opening for Lou Reed, on the New York tour. They closed the set with their hyper-speed version of "What Goes On". What a great band to see live. I saw Luna open for the Screaming Trees when the Lunapark album was just released. I talked to Stanley after their set and was really disappointed to find out that the Feelies were officially a done deal. Later, Marc There should be a detective show called "Johnny Monkey," because every week you could have a guy say "I ain't gonna get caught by no MONKEY," but then he would, and I don't think I'd ever get tired of that. Jack Handey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:25:35 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: VU-->Lou Reed-->Feelies-->Luna - --On Thursday, October 17, 2002 23:08:37 -0700 Marc Holden wrote: >>> 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. > > The original line-up for Luna included the Feelies drummer, Stanley > Demeski. The first two times I saw them (Feelies), they were opening for > Lou Reed, on the New York tour. They closed the set with their > hyper-speed version of "What Goes On". What a great band to see live. I > saw Luna open for the Screaming Trees when the Lunapark album was just > released. I talked to Stanley after their set and was really disappointed > to find out that the Feelies were officially a done deal. Later, Marc Damn, you beat me to it! I was about to note the same things ... ;-) It's funny, seeing how involved I was with the Feelies, that I never ever listened to a single Luna track. I'd been told by friends of mine that they were "boring", so I never even bothered. There are a few Feelies spin-offs worth noting. Glenn and Dave made 3 CDs as "Wake Ooloo". It's basically the Feelies without Bill's guitar. They're OK, but it only proves that the Feelies were about the combination of these two guitar players, just like the Velvets and Television. I really like "Speed The Plough", even though they are definitely amateurs. Then there's "Wild Carnation", Brenda's new band. Their only CD "Tricycle" doesn't do them justice. I've seen them live only one time when they played a small club here in Cologne, but that was a great show. Cheers, Sebastian - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156 50823 Kvln http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ Being just contaminates the void - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:03:34 +0100 From: "Ashley Norris" Subject: Side 3 Side 3 Bought it at the London gig last night and I have spun it a couple of times in the car. It is well worth buying for the six tracks (and vocal interlude) are a lot more upbeat and generally more fun than most of the songs on Nextdoorland. I reckon at least three - Narcissus, Coming Through and Om, should have made the cut. btw they were on great form last night. Shame they are not playing London again on the tour. > Noticed Side3 in the gift shop at robynhitchcock.com. It's a little way > down the list, just above CoB so it may have been there a little longer - I > have been assuming it would be on the top of the list and not scrolling > down. It's got "Tea With Mother" on the cover. > > Brian > np Boredoms, Super Ae ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:08:48 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: You can't be that cryptic, Eb... So what's the story? Cheers Matt >From: Eb >>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. ;) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:41:11 +0100 (BST) From: birdpoo@btinternet.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #330 > Who did the song "The Boy in the Paisley Shirt"? It was the wonderful Television Personalities. Keg http://www.televisionpersonalities.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 02:10:34 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: magic (long - please skip) Jason, Jeffrey, Greg, and Aaron seems intent on carrying on this ridiculous discussion, so I shall humour them, but this is definitely reducing my interest in the list. This is the last I shall say on the matter, for three reasons: (1) I take it from the misrepresentations of magic you have all given that several of you know fuck-all about it, its history, or its rationale. (2) A couple of you cannot uncouple from the idea of magic being wizards (sic) waving magic wands and turning people into frogs. (3) People are calling out for tabs of Robyn's new songs. This moronic debate is taking time away that I could be using on that. >>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. The natural world IS the magic. Someone looking to create artificial gods and spirits might view lightning as a mean ghost, but anyone who knows their salt would surely see it as a natural phenomenon which occur when the weather turns stormy, and that the flow of water in the stream will also depend on whether it has been rainy or dry. Anyone studying the natural world will come to realise what indicators will lead to a likeihood of lightning or thunder occurring. >>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. Magic is a rigorous analysis of the natural world, making assumptions about the viewed reality, repeatedly watching to see if those assumptions prove correct (often over the course of several lifetimes) accepting those which prove repeatedly to work, discarding those which do not. >>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 no I'm not - I'm simply stating that there are medical professionals who are becoming more open to the belief that there is something in these. >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." you obviously haven't read anything that's gone before in this debate. The skills are working (if they're working) because someone has noticed that they worked repeatedly in the past. Probably they did this by studying the natural world. Have I ever mentioned "spiritual forces" (whatever they are)? >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. why not? Just because you find out some reason that something works according to the laws of nature doesn't mean that those laws of nature aren't important. And as far as I am aware, science has never stated why those laws of nature are there. Why is there gravity, for example? >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. And if one takes the aspirin thinking that the chemicals in it will affect your body chemistry and make your headache go away, the aspirin will still work, despite this person's ignorance of why we feel pain. - --- >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. which are in turn based on what? >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. Gasp! We agree on something! (are you well?) - --- >> 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. probably because it's a false claim. >Modern chemistry evolved from alchemy over SEVERAL CENTURIES. true. And modern optics developed from medieval optics over the course of several centuries. Your point being...? >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. So... if a particular concoction was found to work well on a regular basis, then it was a waste of time unless it could be scientifically tested? No. Alchemy had its uses, and was the basis of chemistry as we know it. The application of rigorous scientific testing certainly speeded up the number of discoveries and the efficacity of developing new concoctions, but that doesn't mean that everything that had been used before was useless. >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? Ever heard of trial and error? If something works, you keep with it. If it doesn't, you don't. Methods that work are remembered and passed down from 'adept' to 'adept'. You do get some superstitious reinforcement that way (i.e., things that seem to work through mere coincidence, that are no more than mumbo jumbo), but procedures that work repeatedly are likely to be adopted as canonical. That was the main method of testing just about anything until the development of the scientific method, andmany of the procedures discovered that work repeatedly are ones that are likely to stand up to scientific method anyway. As to scientific method, several of the people involved in the first deliberate formalisation of this were involved in what you might consider magic anyway. Of these, probably the most notable was Francis Bacon. (As to 'standing on the shoulders of giants', that was a particularly cruel barb of Newton's, directly referring to his main rival, who was of very short stature). - --- >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. gravity. electricity. biochemistry. They are all organon built in thin air. Until someone can say "this is why we have minds - this is why the laws of physics exist - this is how the universe formed - this is why time is" the laws of nature are a structure without root. You can quite clearly say that there is a root out there, a scientific one, which we may never know the answer to. And that may be true - that scientific basis that we can never know is the magic. >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. sure,. anyone can do a scientific experiment, and anyone can be responsive to magic. But if you want to get published, you have to be a PhD. >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. at last, someone who has been following the argument. Well done. The thing is, I haven't been defining away that broad definition of a term. I've simply been saying that what I refer to as magic, and what a lot of other people refer to as magic, is not the same as the popular misconception of magic which many people assume it to be. >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.) This comes very close to what I've been trying to say. 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: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:27:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: magic (shortish - please skip) On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, James Dignan wrote: > (1) I take it from the misrepresentations of magic you have all given that > several of you know fuck-all about it, its history, or its rationale. Which is why I'd asked for examples. > gravity. electricity. biochemistry. They are all organon built in thin air. > Until someone can say "this is why we have minds - this is why the laws of > physics exist - this is how the universe formed - this is why time is" the > laws of nature are a structure without root. You can quite clearly say that > there is a root out there, a scientific one, which we may never know the > answer to. And that may be true - that scientific basis that we can never > know is the magic. Ah. "Why" is the domain of philosophy. Science is more about "how." > >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. > > sure,. anyone can do a scientific experiment, and anyone can be responsive > to magic. But if you want to get published, you have to be a PhD. There's a difference between what a field is, and what its professional practices and/or shortcomings are. "Music" is defined as what it is...even though you have to have a major-label contract if you expect your music to be heard by more than a couple hundred people. Does that mean that someone sitting in their room isn't making music? No. > >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 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.) > > This comes very close to what I've been trying to say. See, I think this is largely a terminological dispute, whose disputatious elements wouldn't have arisen if, instead of defending a nebulous concept called "magic" (nebulous in terms of our apprehension of your understanding), you'd offered early on a clear definition of what you meant by it. And since what you mean by it is, however historically accurate or what have you, different from what most people conceive when they hear the term, such a strategy would have been a good one. Well, short*ish*. - --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 ::Californians invented the concept of the life-style. ::This alone warrants their doom. __Don DeLillo, WHITE NOISE__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:31:32 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: magic (brief - please skip) On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, James Dignan wrote: > Jason, Jeffrey, Greg, and Aaron seems intent on carrying on this ridiculous > discussion, so I shall humour them, but this is definitely reducing my > interest in the list. When in doubt, let the thread drop, James! I've skimmed umpteen posts recently about American groups who I've never heard of. When I hear the words "VU-influenced band" I reach for my Delete button. The one point that I would like to add is that the Crowley perspective on magic is that it is influencing the environment solely by use of the human will. I think a lot of those Neitscheans and Nazis out there can probably relate to this approach. There was a fascinating programme on last year about the Schloss where Himmler used to carry out strange rituals with the SS chiefs. It all looked alarmingly similar to the Inner Ring stuff in 'That Hideous Strength'. - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:44:34 +0000 From: "Montauk Daisy" Subject: Magic James, I admire your dedication in sticking to this subject. Every LS has its limitations and Feg's may be is in its occasional blindness to the non-scientific. If I had more energy Id take it head on, but I dont, so thank you for upholding the cause. I especially admired this one: >And if one takes the aspirin thinking that the chemicals in it will >affect >your body chemistry and make your headache go away, the aspirin will >still >work, despite this person's ignorance of why we feel pain. You hit the absolute heart of the matter here. Science can not answer why(as Jeffrey states.) Some philosophies, such as Nihlism take the stance is that there is no why so the how is all that matters. In its own way, this is just as arbitrary as the religious ,magical and some philosophies' stance that there is or may be a why, and that this drawback of science matters very much. This discussion is a bit like the blind talking to the deaf, who answer back in hand signels. But I will say to Jeffrey that you're right, I do use magic as a mediating term between certain aspects of the known and the unknown. And since this chasm between them is always changing shape, the bridge that crosses them changes too. If it makes you all feel any better, scholars of magic also disagree as to its definitions. Its a large, pourous term. And thats before you even get near such distinctions as "natural magic" which is mostly what James and I are talking about, and " demonic magic", which is more what Michael was refering to with the Nazis and the Inner Ring. And don't forget, Newton was an alchemst;-) Kay "I think it's nice when old things can still move around." Robyn Hitchcock _________________________________________________________________ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:42:56 +0000 From: "Montauk Daisy" Subject: Re:Magic Doh me. Im sleepy today and should have just not posted. Apologies for the fractured grammer and the overstated description of Feg's limitations in the last post. Yawn. Kay _________________________________________________________________ Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:19:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: magic (long - please skip) On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, James Dignan wrote: > (1) I take it from the misrepresentations of magic you have all given > that several of you know fuck-all about it, its history, or its > rationale. That's right, James, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant! Good grief. For someone who's usually a voice of reason, you've shown a sudden interest in just using the word "moronic" until you're agreed with. > Magic is a rigorous analysis of the natural world, making assumptions > about the viewed reality, repeatedly watching to see if those > assumptions prove correct (often over the course of several lifetimes) > accepting those which prove repeatedly to work, discarding those which > do not. Except that most people don't use the word that way. I can think of several reasons one might want to, but it's a tough swim upstream to insist that the word is thus redefined. > >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. > > probably because it's a false claim. Perhaps it's not true of people who've gone and gotten themselves confirmed as users of True Magic As Defined By James. But elsewhere, I'm afraid... > Ever heard of trial and error? If something works, you keep with it. If > it doesn't, you don't. Methods that work are remembered and passed down > from 'adept' to 'adept'. You do get some superstitious reinforcement > that way (i.e., things that seem to work through mere coincidence, that > are no more than mumbo jumbo), but procedures that work repeatedly are > likely to be adopted as canonical. And, as I said, this is tremendously inefficient without the scientific method to shuck off that 'superstitious reinforcement'. You feel that "natural magic" and contemporary science are both built on the basis of what you want to call 'magic'? Okay. That may be what both have in common. But it's not *characteristic* of science. > As to scientific method, several of the people involved in the first > deliberate formalisation of this were involved in what you might > consider magic anyway. Of these, probably the most notable was Francis > Bacon. By your definition, what isn't magic? Magic underlies the whole universe, right? If I go down to the store and buy some CDs, that's magic: I am subject to physical forces whose ultimate roots are unexplained, while on the level of ordinary human perceptions, I am doing something that I've done before and which, by the principle of trial and error, is likely to work. Huzzah! a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:26:47 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Howdy, Pardoner! (junkmedia interview) >woj > > Just gotten to that, & it was a great interview. Among other things, it was fun to see Robyn reach for a comparison & pull out Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale. I might have thought of other Canterbury Tales in connection with him, such as the Nun's Priest's Tale, with barnyard animals engaged in philosophy & slapstick, but the Pardoner's Tale is sort of like an old Clint Eastwood western, A Fistful of Dollars or something, and that's appropriate since he was talking about Dubya. - --- Ah, Autumn and the Autumnal night noises. Last year it was roving fighter jets, this year it's police helicopters. My one guess about the sniper is that if he doesn't start up again, he wasn't a terrorist. Ross Taylor Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:55:24 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: if you believe they put a man on the moon (magic) Kay-- >For me magic is a question, not an answer I think that's why I'm a little bit more comfortable with magic than with religion. I love my superstitions, so much that I can't tell you what they are or that would jinx them. For me, belief in omens or lucky behavior is mostly about composing my head, & I guess that's a big factor (at least) in religious ritual. I also vaguely remember that four-way graph Godwin mentioned -- it might have come from "Magic, Science and Religion" by Malinowski, where he says among other things that magic is to religion as technology is to science. But that was back in the 1920s, long before the structuralists. Anyway, I remember that it was observed in "primitive" societies that lots of magic involves out-and-out deception, slight-of- hand etc. Kind of like near the end of the film "Man on the Moon" (since REM is in discussion). Carlos Castenada talks about this in the final section of the FIRST Don Juan book, before he became a convert. Of course there are ways of defending this, as simply being ways of invoking the real paranormal, putting the participants in the proper state of mind, etc. I think when talking about Magic and Religion, Technology and Science, one should get Art and Entertainment in too (a la "Man on the Moon"). I think we make our world by seeing it, as Blake said, "the eye altering, alters all." Ross Taylor "whatever you do, don't laugh you'll give the joke away" -- Procol Harum Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #331 ********************************