Magic. The very word brings to mind fantastical beings and feats that cannot be explained. Or can they? Few have attempted to explain the origins and inner workings of magic as I will now, but I feel as though this theory may help with our understandings and study of magic.
Magic: At a basic level
To understand magic and the world, we must think about what it does. Magic, if we are to put it simply, changes things. That may seem like an oversimplification, but if we are really honest with ourselves we realize this is true. Magic is a process for changing things. Whether these changes are permanent or temporary, they are changes nonetheless.
Magic is a process. This is why it is not enough to inscribe the fire rune on a piece of paper and have it burst into flame. Anyone could make the rune, not everyone has the components or knowledge to cast the spell.
So, magic is a process. Is it so unlike the first being to create fire by rubbing two sticks together? Here we have knowledge, components, and process. Fire is the result. Did this 'inexplicable" "summoning" of fire not seem like "magic" to the first beings? Likely so.
Now this is not to say magic does not exist, that is foolish. What I propose instead is that magic is ingrained in the inner workings of our world. These processes are natural workings of the world that we have happened upon. The world has its own "magic:" tides rising and falling, night and day, earthquakes, storms. Processes and results.
Why do we reserve the term magic only for spells, rituals, and items? At a basic level, study can explain and quantify these causes and effects. While we discuss magic in other terms (and some appear to prefer to keep magic exclusively shrouded in mysticism), there is something that unifies these processes into another simpler language:
Logic. More specifically, mathematics. We can quantify "natural" and "magical" processes in the same terms. Energy conversion and efficiency, observable results, result. Those who think in terms of raw, powerful, ancient magic may think that, again, I am oversimplifying, but consider the basic spell. Light. Is it so difficult to believe that we can chart the process, materials, and energy needed to create a quantifiable amount of light? If we apply logic, we see that this is not so different than lighting a candle.
Speaking of which.
Magic: Learned vs. Natural and the Allegory of the Candle.
So, as mentioned before, magic is a process that enacts change. This is like lighting a candle. First, imagine a spell is a candle. Like the fire rune in the above example, it is useless unless you know how to use it. Without fire, a candle is a lump of wax and wick. Which brings me to my next point, Learned vs. Natural magic.
There has been great debate over how the different schools of magic work, and whether or not they are the same thing. "A wizard casting from a great tome is different than a pious priest beseeching his god!" What is the difference? Is the result not the same? Again, if a spell can be compared to a candle, is the end result not light?
Learned Magic: The process of change
Let's consider learned magic first. Imagine that the world is full of candles, and the one needs only to discover or be given a candle in order to have it. Consider further that in this world, not everyone has the knowledge required to light a candle. Everyone could, in theory, learn how to light a candle (use magic), but not everyone has the same aptitude or opportunity. I practiced the lute in my youth, but I still can play but a few chords and only one full song, similarly, few can do the magical feats of the wizened mage. Now, again, it does no good to know how to light a candle and hold a candle if one cannot light it.
Even the greatest magician cannot cast world changing magic at a constant level. This is perhaps what we understand least about magic, what are the limits? What causes the limits? We do know the more a practitioner of the magical arts practices the more magic they are able to use before they hit their limit. Whatever power they use (in addition to the power that comes from materials and environment) must come from within.
Whatever process (or magical school) one uses to "light the candle," it cannot be lit constantly and cannot be lit over and over without replenishing the lighting supplies.
Natural Magic: The process of manipulation
Natural magic is vexing to scholars. Some pan it as religious nonsense, others believe it cannot be spoken of in the same terms as scholarly magic. Why? If magic is but a process and result, let's examine the difference.
The primary complaint is that those who can use natural magic do not need to undergo training (in general, though there are schools that help harness and develop this power). What does this really change?
Consider: when the man in the above example goes into a darkened room, he gets his candle out and lights it. The desire result is achieved. However, natural magic is more similar to a man who already finds himself in a dark room.
Unlike the example of the learned magician, the natural magician is in a dark room with no candle, however he can see light in another room, and knows someone has a candle in that room. All he has to do is convince them to come to his room.
This can be achieved through a variety of ways: begging (piety), right (bloodline), a deal (pacts), etc. Even though this caster does not hold the candle himself, he is able to achieve the same results. The difference is he has less control over various aspects of his craft. How can he be certain who holds the candle? How can he be certain it is the candle he wants? Who is to say the candle-bearer will leave when requested?
Conclusion:
Imagine again that the world is full of these processes, again represented by candles. We can't know how many candles they are, or even the size/potency of those undiscovered. What candles have yet to be lit? What candles are burning out? What happens when no more candles remain?
No comments:
Post a Comment