Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  I guess you wouldn't be able. Generally, you see what you believe, and you don't see what you don't believe. And that's simply the effect of your own mind and senses, opening & closing themselves in accordance with your beliefs.
For example, your latest posts indicate that you believe that the forum participants here are deluded idiots. Therefore your mind & senses automatically begin closing themselves against any contrary evidence. Thus when you go to Wikipedia, and you see nothing explaining the term "magick". This supports your belief that ALG is engaging in silly, fanciful, childish thinking again.
Me, I type one word - "Magick" into Google.
Instantly the No. 1 Google search result is a Wikipedia entry on "magick".
I click on the link. Immediately I see on my screen, without having to scroll or click anything, the explanation of "magick" and "magic". |
I apologise for being rather confrontational in suggesting that maybe you like to use the spelling as a way of avoiding the implications of saying "magic". I am sorry, it was rather harsh, but you do not exactly help your case by replying that I should look it up in a dictionary. I feel you might be projecting your discomfort when you accuse me of thinking that the forum is populated by deluded idiots, however, which suggests that I am being malicious and angry in my postings. It was meant as a strong challenge to you rather than an insult. I am just trying to discuss whether the world is magical or not, and spelling isn't going to change that. Since you haven't actually helped me understand the difference yet, I'll take it as the obvious, as per impaul99 - magic is pretend, magick is real.
Kind of QED then, isn't it. The definition includes the assertion of its reliability. So, if someone manifests a blue feather in front of me in the orchestra pit, they performed a miracle, but if they get up on stage and do it, I should discount it, right?