Magic by design

[M. J. Young]

There have been a couple of passing mentions in this thread pointing to an aspect that I think has been generally overlooked. Someone said something about the religious dimensions, and in fact historically magic had if not always a religious generally a moral dimension.

Very fine brief introductions to the moral logic of the enchanted world view are to be found in Gluckman's (1944) discussion of Evans-Pritchard's book on the Azande and in a recently published article by Winans and Edgerton (1964).  Gluckman (p. 67) holds that "witchcraft works as a theory of causes" and that the theory is "reasonable and logical, even if it is not true," whereas, Winans and Edgerton (p. 745) assert that magic is "manifestly a negative sanction against violation of moral norms," and that is not only moral, but jural.

If one looks at magical causation as an integral part of a world view, one may carry these observations a step farther and assert that magical causality is moral in its very essence.  "The universe is morally significant.  It cares" (Redfield 1953:106).  The man who becomes seriously ill or suffers great misfortune knows that he has offended or irritated some being, human or otherwise, who has used Power against him.  Whether the offense is intentional or accidental does not matter--the results are the same.  Conversely, the man whose children are hale, who is always prosperous, who escapes unscathed from storms and battles, has always managed to do all the "right" things and none of the "wrong." (Or should he offend some Being or Power and suffer no misfortune, it is because he is under the protection of a more powerful being.) Should such a man be visited by ill fortune, everyone knows that he has somehow fouled up his relationships with the Beings of Power.  In fine, the essential principle of magical logic is that all blessing and all suffering have a cause.

Wax Ch. 4: The Ideal Typical Enchanted Point of View, from Magic, Fate, and History: The Changing Ethos of the Vikings, Published by Coronado Press, Box 32, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, Copyright (c) 1969, by Rosalie H. Wax.

Part of the wonder may be tied up in the degree to which magic relates to these matters of moral right and wrong.

--M. J. Young

[Shreyas Sampat]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

wonder, noun:
1a. One that arouses awe, astonishment, surprise, or admiration; a marvel.
b. The emotion aroused by 1a.
2. An event inexplicable by the laws of nature; a miracle.
3. A feeling of puzzlement or doubt.

MJ,

It escapes my understanding how a consideration of moral factors would be conducive to wonder, if we are agreed that that is its definition. I wonder if you have some insight that I do not, or that your definition differs from mine? As always, I remain

Ever your faithful servant,

Shreyas

[ffilz]

One thought I have is that it may be impossible to truly attain a sense of wonder, at least in a sustainable way. In one sense, I think a sense of wonder or awe arises out of an occurence that was not expected to be possible (which jives with the definition Shreyas posted). A problem might be that in a game, to achieve that unexpected result means that most of the time, the magic must fail (I would propose that the tribal shaman who does a rain dance does not really attain a sense of wonder from it - he expects it to work). But if magic fails most of the time, then it makes the magic just predictably bad.

I think D&D created a sense of wonder for me the first time through, because each supplement presented new magic items and spells, which did things not previously possible. But after all that wore off, magic became predictable, and even subsequent RPGs had a hard time, because of the expectations set by D&D.

If somehow you could find a way for players to specify the effect they wanted from their magic, such that they don't really expect it to work, but you are always able to say "yes!" then you might have something.

Hmm, a new RPG can create a sense of wonder though if the rules turn out to be really elegant. If each new situation, the rules produce results which you say "yes, that's what I think should happen!" then you can derrive a sense of wonder from that experience.

Frank

[contracycle]

Do priests experience wonder?

This is an overlooked issue in this sort of discussion, I think.  We talk about the "sense" of "wonder" but I fully expect this is highly variable in real contexts.  Masybe you are 15, watching the eucharist in procession - maybe you get a sense of wonder, of awe.  By contrast, you're a 50-year old bishop wafting the censor for the thousandth time, do you still that same degree of awe?  I doubt it.

We tend to approach this "awe" as if it were a necessary property of the belief system, rather than if it is a property of what is essentially an art performance.  And this, in my mind, ends up with a projection of this awe onto the experienced practictioner, who is thereby rendered senseless, incompetent, unimportant.

[Vaxalon]

By contrast, you're a 50-year old bishop wafting the censor for the thousandth time, do you still that same degree of awe? I doubt it.
.

If your faith is still strong after thirty years of practice, then yes, you do.  I can't speak from personal experience, but I have been told by people I trust that the touch of the divine never fails to impress, no matter how often it happens.

[Doctor Xero]

It escapes my understanding how a consideration of moral factors would be conducive to wonder

"The universe is morally significant.  It cares" (Redfield 1953:106).

Wax Ch. 4: The Ideal Typical Enchanted Point of View, from Magic, Fate, and History: The Changing Ethos of the Vikings, Published by Coronado Press, Box 32, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, Copyright (c) 1969, by Rosalie H. Wax.

Shreyas, how could a person not be filled with awe when, in the midst of the cold demands of survival and the material drudgery of daily life, he or she suddenly remembers once again that the universe cares -- even when a person's shortsighted fellow humans may fail to!

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

One thought I have is that it may be impossible to truly attain a sense of wonder, at least in a sustainable way.

We talk about the "sense" of "wonder" but I fully expect this is highly variable in real contexts.  Masybe you are 15, watching the eucharist in procession - maybe you get a sense of wonder, of awe.

Some of us never lose our sense of awe and wonder at the mundane miracles of life.  And yes, I mean "awe" and "wonder" as it is defined in dictionaries, religious studies, and philosophy tomes.  When I am not buried under academic red tape, I find myself experiencing that sense of awe and wonder numerous times a day.  I've found this happens for a number of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, pagans, and spiritual folk of all stripes and all ages and all levels of intelligence, learning, and position.  I think it would be naively materialist for us to discount this experience common to so many.

Doctor Xero

[ffilz]

Some of us never lose our sense of awe and wonder at the mundane miracles of life.

Oh, I tend to agree with that. But I'm not sure that you can sustain that awe with something that is reduced to RPG mechanics. In fact, there's an interesting analogy. There are those who are anti-science because reducing the miracles of life to scientific principles destroys the sense of wonder. On the other hand, there are plenty for whom such just increases the sense of wonder - which I guess is why I consider the possibility that one could come up with a set of rules that was "just so right" that you were continuously amazed at how well it does it's job.

Hmm, one modern, rather mechanical example of something that is "just so right" that it inspires awe for me is the LEGO system of building toys. It just amazes me that a few simple ratios established 50 years ago allow for such an amazing system.

Frank

[M. J. Young]

MJ,

It escapes my understanding how a consideration of moral factors would be conducive to wonder, if we are agreed that that is its definition. I wonder if you have some insight that I do not, or that your definition differs from mine?

Doc has responded eloquently to this; let me elucidate.

Magic means that there's someone out there who is big enough to do what to you is impossible, and that that someone takes an interest in your situation, for better or worse. As Wax observes, the believer recognizes that good and bad things happen to you not by mere chance (the modern way of thinking) but because, in the mind of someone far more powerful than you, you deserve them.

That means that whenever good things happen to you, it means someone out there is smiling on you. It means that whenever bad things happen to you, it means someone is displeased with you, and you should find out why and make it right before something worse happens.

If we knew that to be so, it would mean we were constantly aware of our involvement with unseen powerful beings to whom our actions mattered. The gods are watching.

As to how that relates to doing magic, it would seem that if you can get the gods to work on your behalf, you must have been pleasing to them, and if someone can get them to work against you, you must have done something wrong. That ties the performance of magic into the moral conduct both of the user and of the target. The moral dimension arises because of the involvement of these greater beings.

By contrast, you're a 50-year old bishop wafting the censor for the thousandth time, do you still that same degree of awe? I doubt it.

Again, Doc has spoken well to this, but I will also. I'm not a Bishop, but I've been in ministry since high school, in one form or another and still am today. I'm not yet fifty, but it's a difference that would vanish in the smallest of roundings. Sometimes when you're fifteen, you feel no awe; sometimes when you're fifty, you still do. If anything, I think I have moved into more awe and wonder through the years as I have more clearly seen Him whom I serve.

I'm sure that you can get used to the elephant in the room, as it were; but this one moves, and when He does, you realize just how big He is.

--M. J. Young

[TonyLB]

Magic means that there's someone out there who is big enough to do what to you is impossible, and that that someone takes an interest in your situation, for better or worse. As Wax observes, the believer recognizes that good and bad things happen to you not by mere chance (the modern way of thinking) but because, in the mind of someone far more powerful than you, you deserve them.

Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first.  It assumes an intermediate step along the lines of "and the greater force is operating to provide people with what they deserve".

Now I say this not in fact to nitpick.  I say it because in any game you've got two things:  The events that happen, and the structure that explains them.  That second thing ("the greater force wants to give you what you deserve") is the structure that explains events.

You can do one of two things:  First, you can decide what the structure is, then create the events from there.  Second, you can make the events happen, and figure out from what happens in the game (even if it's random) what the underlying structure is.

For instance, in Dogs in the Vineyard, the decisions of the Dogs are not constrained by any tenets of religion.  The GM will never say "That wasn't what God wanted".  Whatever the Dogs decide, that's what God wanted.  That's the "event that happens".  The nature of God (vengeful vs. merciful, just vs. pragmatic, etc.) is whatever is implied by those events.  The Dogs are right, and the Dogs did this, therefore the structure of the universe is such that this is right.

I think that this second approach is a stronger one for approaching the creation of wonderment:  The universe cares what you do.  These events have happened.  Now what does that say about what the universe wants from and for you?  And what does that insight, in turn, bring to the next round of actions?

[Shreyas Sampat]

For that matter, to say that if an entity transcends your limitations means that it is greater than you is frankly ridiculous. A ladybug can fly but I cannot! Am I to feel awe and wonderment if I can manipulate the ladybug's needs and desires so that its actions accomplish my goals?

If I am, shouldn't I be more impressed with myself than this lowly insect dupe?

[contracycle]

Some of us never lose our sense of awe and wonder at the mundane miracles of life.

My condolences.

[Vaxalon]

There's a difference between experiencing awe and wonder at the ruleset of a game, and experiencing awe at a game experience as a whole.  One might attribute that awe to the ruleset, but it would be better aimed at the system as a whole.

[Joe J Prince]

Magic only ever works one way.

By magic.

Because it's magic.


Spirituality only ever works one way.

Some dude makes some stuff up then convinces other dudes he's right.


But like that's just my opinions ;-)

[Garbanzo]

This discussion seems to be drifting from Wonder to Faith.  

M.J., your quote from Wax talks about magic resulting from essentially social offences against Entities.  Perhaps implicitly, violating social norms offends said Entities.  In this way magic is moral, but reinforces the morality of the village.  It cares, but cares only that the social mores are followed.

From here, though, discussion spun into a different form of caring: that of a benevolent Entity towards each individual.

Shreyas, how could a person not be filled with awe when, in the midst of the cold demands of survival and the material drudgery of daily life, he or she suddenly remembers once again that the universe cares -- even when a person's shortsighted fellow humans may fail to!

This sense of comfort is a new addition to the equation.  We can posit a cold, impersonal Entity concerned only with the number of sacrifices or the hunting practices of the males.  This Entity surely "cares," but about my actions, not about me.

My suggestion is we've slipped into a digression about the Wonder inherent in a certain variety of Faith, which can be cleanly seperated from the Wonder to be had in Magic.

Up at the start of the thread, Tony explicitly stated he was interested in Magic, not Religion.  
Tony: should we cleave to the original topic, or is it time to cleave from it?

-Matt