The definition of occult

[fakename]

On the subject of occult stuff and its connection with stories, etc. I’m still confused. On the one hand I think it is pretty reasonable to think that most stories are just down right evil. On the other though, no one in the church hierarchy is warning people about disney so I don’t know why I should come to such an opposite conclusion. My reasoning is this:

In a restricted sense magic is understood to be an interference with the usual course of physical nature by apparently inadequate means (recitation of formularies, gestures, mixing of incongruous elements, and other mysterious actions), the knowledge of which is obtained through secret communication with the force underlying the universe (God, the Devil, the soul of the world, etc.)…

Now aladdin for instance, used inadequate means (genies) the knowledge of which was obtained through secret knowledge (no one knows about genies) etc.

Also,

tacit invocation divination is in itself a grievous sin, though in practice, ignorance, simplicity, or want of belief may render it venial.

So a person who doesn’t believe in genies but watches aladdin and identifies with the protagonist is obviously tacitly taking place in some magic. But even if not, there could, in principle, be a story about someone who divines and no matter how incredulous the viewer or reader is vis-a-vis these rituals, he still takes place in them if he identifies with the protagonist. Is this true?

 

[AndrewA]

No. It is simply fiction. I know of nobody who as gone out in search of a Gennie after seeing the movie.

It’s Just a fantasy.

 

[promethius]

Now aladdin for instance, used inadequate means (genies) the knowledge of which was obtained through secret knowledge (no one knows about genies) etc.

Actually, Genies as a concept come from Djinn, which are what muslims consider to be angels and/or demons. Aladdin strays pretty far from this concept by supposing that people could somehow become djinni as well, but that is simply not the case according to Arabic culture.

I think what you’re looking for, however, is not the idea that in the occult knowledge is obtained through “secret knowledge”, but rather that knowledge or power is sought through illicit means.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

In a restricted sense magic is understood to be an interference with the usual course of physical nature by apparently inadequate means (recitation of formularies, gestures, mixing of incongruous elements, and other mysterious actions), the knowledge of which is obtained through secret communication with the force underlying the universe (God, the Devil, the soul of the world, etc.)…

Not always, heck this doesn’t even speak for most fantasy fiction. It is not an ‘interference’ but simply an alternative or even a substitute for technology. Many fantasy realms have some sort of neutral energy force (be it called mana/chakra/ki/psionic energy etc) that possesses the same moral neutrality as electricity or heat energy. The only difference is that the beings (or at least certain beings) in the realm have a natural ability for channeling that energy. The reason why such an energy is morally neutral is that it doesn’t possess a sentience (again, just like electricity, heat, nuclear power etc). Hence, it can be used safely without fear of invoking occult entities unlike in our world were such power can only come from either God or Satan.

To tell you the truth, there is not much difference between the super advanced technology of sci-fi and the magic of fantasy save for the form, the aesthetic appearance. The effect and the essence though remain the same. Also, to say ‘mysterious’ actions are ‘inadequate means’ is a stretch when you think about, for instance, just what is it about combining Hydrogen and Oxygen that produces water. Just replace those two elements with let’s say fantasy items such as Dragon’s Fang and Phoenix Feather and you’ll be seeing the parallel.

 

[fakename]

I do like the idea of “illicit means” being an interesting elucidation of the definition. Just to make clear I didn’t get the definition from me but rather from the catholic encyclopedia. I’m just interested in it’s logical implications which allow one to live more ethically.

Now as for the naturalness of magic in fiction -I’ve thought about this too and I figure that it could make an exception but for these reasons: “The means being inadequate they must, therefore, be supplemented by some power…gods or evil spirits.”

So here we see that all inadequate means are demonic is true. So whether one thinks they’re natural or not, they are still inadequate so they must be demonic. Also, the quote seems to imply that there are only 2 alternatives in these matters: either adequate or from demons. So this means that it its not adequate, it’s demons. Now this might be a reductio ad absurdum but it seems that this also means that anything not understandable to one self is also therefore demonic. So things that work but are not scientifically provable are demonic. This is odd because if I don’t know how 1+1=2 yet I say it by guessing, and since guessing is an inadequate means then guessing must be in some way demonic. The same problems applies with the “mysterious action” part too. As for sci-fi I would agree that since some at least attempt an explanation it may not be occult but fantasy stories I think would not be outside of the definition of magic.

 

[beth40n2]

New Advent, the Catholic Encylopedia gives a great, complete definition.

newadvent.org/cathen/11197b.htm

 

[fakename]

Yeah, that’s where I got my definition but the logic of it all means that 99% of what people think is okay and 0% of what priests warn people about, are actually bad. And this is why I’m talking about how to reconcile this with the definition with everyone here.

Thanks for the reference though. I wonder if most people use the encyclopedia because they should --it is so informative!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Now as for the naturalness of magic in fiction -I’ve thought about this too and I figure that it could make an exception but for these reasons: “The means being inadequate they must, therefore, be supplemented by some power…gods or evil spirits.”

So here we see that all inadequate means are demonic is true. So whether one thinks they’re natural or not, they are still inadequate so they must be demonic. Also, the quote seems to imply that there are only 2 alternatives in these matters: either adequate or from demons. So this means that it its not adequate, it’s demons. Now this might be a reductio ad absurdum but it seems that this also means that anything not understandable to one self is also therefore demonic.

You misunderstand. What you deem as ‘inadequate’ is in fact adequate because it pertains to a fictional character’s natural ability to utilize the neutral force in that particular fantasy universe. It’s no different than us real people utilizing our own natural capabilities (e.g. our intelligence for instance) to shape nature around us.

So things that work but are not scientifically provable are demonic. This is odd because if I don’t know how 1+1=2 yet I say it by guessing, and since guessing is an inadequate means then guessing must be in some way demonic. The same problems applies with the “mysterious action” part too. As for sci-fi I would agree that since some at least attempt an explanation it may not be occult but fantasy stories I think would not be outside of the definition of magic.

Actually any story set in the fantasy realm provides an explanation of its cosmology. What you seem to forget is that magic in many fantasy universes is in fact a form of science. For instance, when a character teaches another character how to cast a certain spell or perform a certain technique, the character first explains the principles of magic in their world in a fashion similar to a teacher explaining the laws of physics or the mechanics behind a certain move. Take this scene for instance. (Note: This is a manga page so you read it from right to left.)

Furthermore, to criticize the use of magic in fiction on the grounds that it is ‘unscientific’ is erroneous. What we call ‘science’ is simply the principles that govern the clockwork of our universe. Fantasy universes operate on different laws, hence that’s why they’re called fantasy. That’s not even considering the fact that even science-fiction breaks scientific laws and introduces elements not found in science (take the gamma radiation of the Hulk or the Neosteel utilized by the Terran faction in Starcraft).

 

[fakename]

“You misunderstand. What you deem as ‘inadequate’ is in fact adequate because it pertains to a fictional character’s natural ability to utilize the neutral force in that particular fantasy universe. It’s no different than us real people utilizing our own natural capabilities (e.g. our intelligence for instance) to shape nature around us.”

Okay so the word “inadequate” is used to signify that the action in question can’t objectively cause things regardless of whether or not one has a good reason to believe that it could. Am I understanding your words correctly?

I think that does make sense since the encyclopedia does say, "The demon is invoked tacitly when anyone tries to acquire information through means which he knows to be inadequate, and the means are inadequate when neither from their own nature nor from any Divine promise are they capable of producing the desired effect. " And your explanation seems like a probable interpretation of the passage.

But some questions: In fantasy then, things are not inadequate means because they happen in that universe’s nature. But I think it is possible to have a fantasy story where that universe’s law does not follow the law of non-contradiction. If that is so, then in some universes of fantasy a thing can be both inadequate and adequate. So therefore that fiction would be both occult and non-occult? Doesn’t fantasy have to be at least a little logic (and so science) in order to work? Also, in some universe’s their laws may not be commensurate with the existence of God so some universe’s are not christian by nature (Greek myth). If that is true, then how are we to interpret these fictions?

Also, by nature, guessing doesn’t get to the truth so that is still under the new definition demonic and inadequate. But in the same way, it is “natural” for guessing to get at the truth since it is true that accidents sometimes achieve things that would’ve happened by necessity. So in what way is natural being used? Does it mean “something follows by definition from this” or does it mean “something follows by accident from this”?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think that does make sense since the encyclopedia does say, "The demon is invoked tacitly when anyone tries to acquire information through means which he knows to be inadequate, and the means are inadequate when neither from their own nature nor from any Divine promise are they capable of producing the desired effect. " And your explanation seems like a probable interpretation of the passage.

Indeed. In fact, let’s use science fiction as an example. Say for instance, in this universe you can’t really create a radioactive spider and gain super powers from being bitten by it. In the world of Marvel however, that’s exactly how Peter Parker becomes the now famous Spiderman. See what may be inadequate in our universe may not be so in a fictional one. The things you read about the occult from the Catholic encyclopedia, refer only to our world, the real world.

Hence, it’s important to always know between fantasy and reality.

Doesn’t fantasy have to be at least a little logic (and so science) in order to work? Also, in some universe’s their laws may not be commensurate with the existence of God so some universe’s are not christian by nature (Greek myth). If that is true, then how are we to interpret these fictions?

First off, yes a little bit of logic is necessary but that little bit can easily lead to a sort of minimalism wherein only the most basic of basic logic is employed (e.g. water puts out fire). The rest, however, a fantasy author then takes to his/her own artistic liberty (e.g. combining the magical element of fire with that of ice/water results in a spell that causes intensely cold, blue flames).

Secondly, as to realms wherein the Christian God is out of the picture, that is not problematic for we simply take a universe by its own terms. I personally see reading fiction as akin to traveling different dimensions, different worlds. And since such a realm is fictitious, it should have no influence upon me other than that of entertainment should a world be different from a world such as ours, the one created by the Christian God.

After all, God is the only author I know whose creation came to life.

 

[fakename]

A few more questions then:

Knowing that something is “inadequate” means to believe something is inadequate or is it to know with certainty that it is and to make use of it despite this? Because in one instance you think that “I’ll do it even though it is obviously wrong” and in the other instance you say, “I’ll do it even though it only has a slight chance of being right”?

Also, one earlier question wasn’t answered and that is how is “nature” being used? Does nature refer to “definition” (as in humans are naturally rational since that is the definition of human) or does it refer to accidentally natural (as in humans naturally make mistakes though mistake-making is not part of the definition of man)?

But also, does this mean that if a fictional character performs inadequate acts in his own universe, that these acts are evil? If so then some of the “anti-hero type” is unusable since sometimes he thinks he is performing acts that lead to good though they don’t. Is this true?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

A few more questions then:

Knowing that something is “inadequate” means to believe something is inadequate or is it to know with certainty that it is and to make use of it despite this? Because in one instance you think that “I’ll do it even though it is obviously wrong” and in the other instance you say, “I’ll do it even though it only has a slight chance of being right”?

You have to consider first that what is “inadequate” is simply something that is in the base sense of the word. Let us say in this universe, it is inadequate to rely on concentration alone to ‘read minds’ as it were and it is only through God or Satan can there truly be an explanation for such a power. In a fantasy realm though, the ability to read minds can be an inherent, natural ability for some beings (or perhaps all beings so as long as they are taught the technique). Hence, it is not inadequate anymore.

Also, one earlier question wasn’t answered and that is how is “nature” being used? Does nature refer to “definition” (as in humans are naturally rational since that is the definition of human) or does it refer to accidentally natural (as in humans naturally make mistakes though mistake-making is not part of the definition of man)?

On this subject, I believe “nature referring to definition” is closer. However, the definition should be the one within the context of a fantasy universe. If magic is defined as some sort of neutral force as with electricity, solar energy, atomic power etc, then we should go by that definition.

But also, does this mean that if a fictional character performs inadequate acts in his own universe, that these acts are evil? If so then some of the “anti-hero type” is unusable since sometimes he thinks he is performing acts that lead to good though they don’t. Is this true?

Well in a sense yes. For instance, if a character were to willfully resort to, let’s say, Dark Arts or Forbidden Jutsus, then that character is likely on the path of a villain. However, take note, I’ve known quite a few anti-hero-ish characters who don’t use Dark Arts as much as they are cursed with the ability. Take Merlin for instance, who in some stories, is in fact a half-demon. However, he still remains a positive figure in Arthurian lore.

 

[fakename]

“On this subject, I believe “nature referring to definition” is closer. However, the definition should be the one within the context of a fantasy universe. If magic is defined as some sort of neutral force as with electricity, solar energy, atomic power etc, then we should go by that definition.”

So in this case the viewer of fantasy must know the fantasy world he experiences systematically -through definitions so as to avoid the occult?

"Well in a sense yes. For instance, if a character were to willfully resort to, let’s say, Dark Arts or Forbidden Jutsus, then that character is likely on the path of a villain. However, take note, I’ve known quite a few anti-hero-ish characters who don’t use Dark Arts as much as they are cursed with the ability. Take Merlin for instance, who in some stories, is in fact a half-demon. However, he still remains a positive figure in Arthurian lore. "

So again, by knowing what a character does, does not someone sometimes at least mentally perform their actions and so if a character performs occult activity then you would be performing occult activity. These two conclusions taken together also means that fiction is something difficult to enjoy so one should stay away from it?

 

[kenofken]

By being alive and through everyday acts of living, you’re participating in “magick” as the energy that is exuded and manipulated by every created thing. So the bottom line is, you’re all hosed! (Those of us who are practiced “occultists” are guilty of “aggravated use of natural energy with intent”)

 

[promethius]

By being alive and through everyday acts of living, you’re participating in “magick” as the energy that is exuded and manipulated by every created thing. So the bottom line is, you’re all hosed! (Those of us who are practiced “occultists” are guilty of “aggravated use of natural energy with intent”)

Possiblement… if the “occultists” are right and the Christians are wrong. However, if the Christians are right, then every day life is a grace from God, not a simple “magick”.

The problem, of course, is not the possession of something (life, spiritual power/knowledge, charisms) but rather the attempted illicit means to gain something (life, spiritual power/knowledge, charisms).

And there’s nothing wrong with fantasy fiction which deals with magic, provided that the reader is properly disposed to understand the difference between the real world (where an objective, natural, extra-human power does not exist) and the fantasy world in question (where such an objective, neutral, natural power does exist).

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So in this case the viewer of fantasy must know the fantasy world he experiences systematically -through definitions so as to avoid the occult?

Absolutely. You see when one knows the difference between the real world and the fantasy world, then clearly such a sane person wouldn’t practice anything that only belongs in the fantasy world no?

So again, by knowing what a character does, does not someone sometimes at least mentally perform their actions and so if a character performs occult activity then you would be performing occult activity. These two conclusions taken together also means that fiction is something difficult to enjoy so one should stay away from it?

Absolutely not. You are not the character you are reading. That would be like saying reading about a murder news article would make you the murderer, if you catch my drift. You are simply the reader, the unseen traveler in the story who simply watches and never interferes.

 

[fakename]

“Absolutely. You see when one knows the difference between the real world and the fantasy world, then clearly such a sane person wouldn’t practice anything that only belongs in the fantasy world no?”

What I meant was that one must know the laws behind genies and their creation etc… so that you can know what is or is not adequate in that universe. Just as in this universe, the only way to know if astronomy is adequate means is a science of astronomy, optics, etc.
Of course, it could be that the prime law of a fanstasy world is that it doesn’t exist but then, we would be hard pressed to reconcile this with the fact that most stories assume their reality (in a limited way) in order to animate the plot. In this case, the law of non contradiction seems contradicted.

“Absolutely not. You are not the character you are reading. That would be like saying reading about a murder news article would make you the murderer, if you catch my drift. You are simply the reader, the unseen traveler in the story who simply watches and never interferes.”

I’ve also thought about this analogy but I think objections are possible: 1) there are simple thoughts like “get hammer” that are sometimes thought when we go to get a hammer. Similarly when we see someone getting a hammer “get a hammer” is then logically included in our thoughts since we see a man getting a hammer. And so it happens in fiction that we sometimes mentally do the things we see. 2) The definition of magic doesn’t obviously apply to the objective only but also to the subjective (since it could be inadequate means towards moving an object through just willing it). Because of this it doesn’t matter if you are not the character you are reading the definition still applies.

And one question I forgot to ask is, whether guessing the future can be considered divination since it seems to be definitely inadequate towards the goal and doesn’t by its nature make predictions but only accidentally etc.

Thanks also, for having this back-and-forth. I can be exhausting I know (I live with me).

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What I meant was that one must know the laws behind genies and their creation etc… so that you can know what is or is not adequate in that universe. Just as in this universe, the only way to know if astronomy is adequate means is a science of astronomy, optics, etc.

Of course, and I meant exactly what I said. You take a fictional universe on its own terms. Try to fully understand it through the story and avoid putting in anything from the outside at all costs (this includes real-world science and real-world theology).

I’ve also thought about this analogy but I think objections are possible: 1) there are simple thoughts like “get hammer” that are sometimes thought when we go to get a hammer. Similarly when we see someone getting a hammer “get a hammer” is then logically included in our thoughts since we see a man getting a hammer. And so it happens in fiction that we sometimes mentally do the things we see. 2) The definition of magic doesn’t obviously apply to the objective only but also to the subjective (since it could be inadequate means towards moving an object through just willing it). Because of this it doesn’t matter if you are not the character you are reading the definition still applies.

Mentally doing something in fantasy is not really the same as actually doing it. You see the imagination itself is still acting within the context of the fantasy universe. I’m sure you’ve heard sayings along the lines of “losing one’s mind inside a book”. Now your mind is in a way, not in the real world anymore but in the world of fantasy.

To believe otherwise would be like saying every kid that dreams about flying like Superman or transforming into a Power Ranger is in violation of the natural laws of physics.

And one question I forgot to ask is, whether guessing the future can be considered divination since it seems to be definitely inadequate towards the goal and doesn’t by its nature make predictions but only accidentally etc.

I believe divination requires more than just guessing, in fact, I’m not even sure if it’s guessing at all. The critical element, I believe, is that you invoke a power that is outside the natural capacity of man (and by capacity, I’m talking about real-world capacity, not fantasy).

 

[fakename]

“Mentally doing something in fantasy is not really the same as actually doing it. You see the imagination itself is still acting within the context of the fantasy universe. I’m sure you’ve heard sayings along the lines of “losing one’s mind inside a book”. Now your mind is in a way, not in the real world anymore but in the world of fantasy.”

So to read fantasy w/o falling into the occult would mean to be lost in fantasy? Most people though aren’t lost in fantasy so they must be practicing the occult? Again I’m sure if this conclusion is allowed then fantasy is no longer an airy pastime but rather a science as demanding as any-other.

“Of course, and I meant exactly what I said. You take a fictional universe on its own terms. Try to fully understand it through the story and avoid putting in anything from the outside at all costs (this includes real-world science and real-world theology)”

Again, in this case fantasy and fantasizing must be hard?

I believe divination requires more than just guessing, in fact, I’m not even sure if it’s guessing at all. The critical element, I believe, is that you invoke a power that is outside the natural capacity of man (and by capacity, I’m talking about real-world capacity, not fantasy).

I disagree since divination means to see the future by inadequate means. Inadequate means are things which don’t produce their effects by nature. But guessing doesn’t naturally lead to a knowledge of the future but only accidentally gives future knowledge. So guessing has to be divination -which is a strange conclusion.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So to read fantasy w/o falling into the occult would mean to be lost in fantasy? Most people though aren’t lost in fantasy so they must be practicing the occult? Again I’m sure if this conclusion is allowed then fantasy is no longer an airy pastime but rather a science as demanding as any-other.

By lost, I only mean your mind is not in the real world. It is somewhere in the realm of fantasy, perhaps walking alongside Frodo across Middle-Earth or watching Negi Springfield fight in yet another magic tournament. This is why I have always strongly advocated the separation of fantasy from reality. The worlds of fantasy are places were only your mind can go into and not the rest of the real world. Hence, when your mind is within the context of a fantasy setting and you imagine an act of spell-casting, it is not the same spell-casting within the context of the real world.

As for it being a science, well in a sense, it already is when you take into account the academic discipline of literary criticism.

Again, in this case fantasy and fantasizing must be hard?

Well define ‘hard’? There are many things people do for past time pleasure that other people find hard. For instance, I know many people who hardly get tired from playing street basketball but can’t wrap their head around the things bookworms and comic book geeks such as myself talk about.

I disagree since divination means to see the future by inadequate means. Inadequate means are things which don’t produce their effects by nature. But guessing doesn’t naturally lead to a knowledge of the future but only accidentally gives future knowledge. So guessing has to be divination -which is a strange conclusion.

I believe you are confusing the quality of being ‘natural’ with the quality of having a high probability. I admit, I’m finding difficulty in giving a proper analogy but try this one:

Earthquakes have a low probability of not happening, however they are still natural. They can be explained. Neither God or Satan have a direct hand when they occur. They are simply a result of the tectonic cycle that continuous to shape the face of our planet.

Furthermore, guessing relies purely in what little to no information and is simply mindlessly throwing answers out there.

Divination on the other hand, is considered 100% accurate and hence the wariness since they are a sign of occult forces at work.

Example, suppose a normal person and an occult practitioner were to both be seated and guess the contents of, let’s say ten boxes presented to them.

The occult practitioner, having ill-begotten powers bestowed by demonic forces, guesses them all through their intervention. On the other hand, it is only natural for a normal person to guess about one or two at most granted the limited yet natural capacity to discern the content of the boxes (e.g. shaking them, smelling them etc).