“Magic is never totally scientifically explainable, but science has always been, at one time or another, considered magic.”
– Anton LaVey
Might as well ask the KMLAI to “Describe Natural Philosophy”:
Natural philosophy, also known as philosophy of nature, is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of nature and the physical world. It seeks to understand the laws and principles that govern the natural world and explores its structure, properties, and behavior.
Natural philosophy encompasses various fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and geology. It involves the use of empirical observation and experimentation to develop hypotheses and theories about the natural world.
Historically, natural philosophy was a term used to describe the study of the natural world before the development of modern science. It was concerned with questions about the nature of reality, the origins of the universe, and the relationship between matter and energy.
Today, natural philosophy continues to play an important role in scientific inquiry. It provides a philosophical foundation for scientific research and helps scientists to develop a deeper understanding of the natural world.
Do psychology and natural philosophy dovetail?
Psychology and natural philosophy have intersected and influenced each other throughout history. Natural philosophy, which is now known as science, was one of the earliest fields to investigate the human mind and behavior. Many of the earliest philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato, wrote about the human psyche and behavior.
Psychology as a formal scientific discipline emerged during the late 19th century, and it drew heavily from natural philosophy and other scientific fields. Today, psychology continues to be influenced by natural philosophy, particularly in areas such as cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology.
The question becomes how much does the Epicurean Atomist Philosophy really pertain to different studies and the answer is that it describes the natural world before science was invented so of course there are connections in surprising places.
“The Realms of Magic” and Science are intertwined all the time. It’s only when we use “Philosophy” that we begin to dream our world together. Most religions have Natural Philosophy built into them in some form or another and the keys to showing us how all this works was given to us 2500 years ago and even earlier in some other religions.
Back to the original Post:
Five Worlds of Magic or Four?
Khaos and Cosmos, Ethereal, Chthonic, Epifáneia
It’s the current question, are there four worlds or five?
The first word is a proto state, it could be a singularity, it’s supposed to be a uniform state before night emerged from amorphous — Khaos is “a state without form” before Cosmos. The objects in Cosmos have names, they move around up there and some of their names are the same as the ancient G-d’s. Once it emerges, you name it and give it order, it’s not in the state of Khaos, it has a place in Cosmos. [Universe]
Does that mean it’s a separate realm or world? OR is this a search with science to find the origin of everything we can see, hear touch or taste in the universe? [Ouch]
Let’s turn back to Magic:
If something happens only one time in Khaos and Cosmos or any of the realms of Magic — just one single time: Is it Magic? or is there a complete scientific explanation of the event?
Remember it’s only one single time. What are the odds of it happening again? What caused this one event? Can you figure out from what you know in the scientific world, what scientific facts led to it? Does it even make sense to try to figure out what happened at the Liminal [threshold] or did it just appear on the Epifáneia? [Revealing Surface]
I believe in something called Magic.
I believe the probabilistic odds are not sometimes not calculable and I believe it’s part of our natural world. I believe it’s actually a kind of a force that we have not fully defined yet but you can see the result — when it happens and it usually can be seen on a Epifáneia surface. Scientists don’t disagree with it.
I believe Anton was right:
WHEN we create magic we are choosing to use a viewpoint of the world — using our own minds — creating order from Khaos AND sometimes WHEN we don’t know what caused or created something — in the exploration of the unknowable all around us every day — we call it Magic.
Does that help explain it?
Magic is not a bad word.
–G
