Forums

~ I. The Need for Traditions ~

(1) What is a plane? What is anima? What is magic? Let's begin with the last question. It's difficult to say what magic is because 'magic' has multiple meanings. On the one hand, 'magic' refers to a particular skill practiced in Gielinor and other worlds, distinct from other skills such a mining or runecrafting. This is a narrow use of the term. On the other hand, many people will say that everything is magical in some manner. Perhaps some things are more magical than others - runecrafting, for example, is a more magical skill than mining. And herblore falls somewhere in between - for it is not mere botany; certain herbs are said to have magical properties. But in some minimal sense, every skill and every thing participates in magic. This is a broad use of the term.

(2) The problem is that neither use of the term, taken on its own, makes it obvious what magic is and why we use 'magic' in different ways. A skeptic might say that that's just the way it is, that the development of language is a matter of blind historical happenstance, that there is no essence of magic, nor any other systematic connection, informing the uses of the term. I would like to provide a more compelling answer.

(3) To begin, we should note the dangers of beginning with either use of 'magic' on its own. The narrow sense gives us a nicely delineated scope of phenomena to address, but it also excludes precisely what makes magic theory so interesting, i.e. its universal applicability. So a theory of the skill of magic risks being narrow and boring. If we turn to the wider sense, we must be careful to avoid a problem that plagues almost anything we can say about everything - we risk saying nothing at all. So a theory of everything risks being meaningless and boring.

(4) By taking both of the uses of 'magic' together, we discover another way forward. Consider the following. We said above that everything is magical but that some things are more magical than others. It is likely that we come to recognize what stands out as distinctly or especially magical before we recognize a magical property common to all things. Thus the narrow use of 'magic' - referring to the skill - precedes the broad use of 'magic' - referring to a property appearing in everything. But then how do we get from the narrow use of 'magic' to the broad use?

(5) One might think that as soon as we come to recognize something common in everything that we find especially concentrated in the skill of magic, we will simply and straightforwardly call that something 'magic.' While this seems to describe how our language develops, it misses a key transformation. 'Magic,' in its first and narrow sense, refers to a skill. 'Magic' in its broad sense refers to a property, not a skill - a property found in all things and concentrated in a particular skill. 'Magic' in the broad sense is a new thing. We would have to redefine 'magic' as this new thing in order then to describe the skill of magic as especially magical.

(6) So the question arises: why would we call the new thing 'magic'? why not give it an entirely new name? I propose a two-part answer. First, the new thing, the property to which 'magic' refers in its broad sense, is not immediately apparent to someone who understands 'magic' only according to its narrow sense. A property appearing in all things takes time to discover, and is often discovered slowly rather than in a single flash of insight. Therefore, neither the broad use of 'magic' nor any other word for the universal/transcendental property we call 'magic' will be immediately understood by everybody.

(7) Second, before someone comes to recognize the universal/transcendental property of magic, he may discern a similarity between the skill of magic and other things - he may begin to see the property especially apparent in the skill of magic before he can identify it with a word. He can say that everything is somehow like magic - yet he cannot draw the conclusion that the skill of magic is especially magical, because he has not yet discovered the broad sense of 'magic.' At this stage, he has not yet identified magic as a property but employs the word 'magic' metaphorically - he is applying it more broadly than its narrow sense - not newly defined but as a metaphor.

(8) This intermediate stage, in which 'magic' is employed metaphorically, reveals why we use 'magic' in two ways. By using one word - 'magic' - for two phenomena - a skill and a universal/transcendental property - we indicate the manner in which the more elusive phenomenon is discovered, i.e. by seeing something that is concentrated in the more apparent phenomenon - the skill of magic - also present in everything else. The use of metaphor in the process of discovery is the link between the two meanings of 'magic.'

(9) Unfortunately, this link is easily forgotten once the two senses of 'magic' are distinguished and the relationship between the underlying phenomena is articulated. Afterward we can reconnect the senses by relating the broad sense to the narrow sense, but the original progression from the narrow sense to the broad sense is lost.

(10) The following problem then arises. Someone learning a theory might grasp the original connection between the narrow and broad uses of the word in a stroke of genius and therefore thoroughly grasp the meaning of the theory; but more likely, he will face a choice: either accept the broad use of words dogmatically or reject the theory in favor of another one or in favor of the narrow use of words.

(11) In other words, unless a theory indicates the experiences or observations which justify the way it speaks of elusive phenomena, such as universal/transcendental properties of things, it is not compelling. It becomes a matter of taste rather than a matter of conviction. Therefore, a good theory of magic ought to come with accounts of how it was originally developed, and not only that - but accounts of how one might retrieve the earlier perspective which knew only the narrow sense of 'magic' and which stretched 'magic' into metaphor in its first attempts to grasp the universal/transcendetal property of magic.

(12) Accounts like these would be extensive, especially if they were developed from scratch. But thankfully they need not be developed from scratch. The study and other means by which we retrieve earlier perspectives for the sake of rediscovering the links that hold together our understanding of the world are the stuff of traditions, heritage - intellectual, scientific, religious, and cultural traditions. The rituals, legends, histories, practices, and language of a tradition exist in order to make possible the process of rediscovery. They enshrine for us the experiences and experiments by which our predecessors expanded their understanding of the world through metaphor. Traditions accustom us to certain ways of seeing the world so that we can slowly discover for ourselves the universal/transcendental properties revealed in ages past, as well as new properties yet to be discovered but made accessible by the foundations that traditions provide. Therefore, traditions play a key role in completing the work of theory.

(13) The foregoing is sufficient to return to the original questions. I have not adequately answered what magic is, nor have I addressed planes or anima, but I've accomplished three steps toward these goals. First, I have introduced the concept of a universal/transcendental property of reality. These are properties which appear in all things in various degrees. All three questions above ask about universal/transcendental properties of reality - because everything is related to planes, anima, and magic, some more prominently than others. In Part II, I will call these 'transcendentals.'

(14) Second, I have identified the mechanism by which theoretical language concerning transcedentals is originally developed. This mechanism is metaphor.

(15) Third, I have briefly identified the context in which the metaphorical origins of our theories are to be rediscovered - i.e. within the rituals, legends, histories, practices, and languages of intellectual, scientific, religious, and cultural traditions. Two further points follow from this. First, our lore-theories will not be complete without an account of the traditions that preserve the means of rediscovering the metaphorical links that hold our theories together. And second, this will have a significant impact on the forms of our theories themselves. I hope that this impact will be illustrated through the course of this thread.

(16) This sets up the thread. The rest will proceed in a backwards order. In Part II, I'll present an sketch of my conclusions concerning planes, anima, and magic. In Part III, I'll present a partially headcannon history of human magics upon the plane of Gielinor, which supports the conclusions in Part II. In Part IV, I'll present some of the history, proverbs, and songs that make up my headcannon Armadylean tradition. And in Part V, I'll end with the founding scripture of that tradition - the Epic of Ikov, which preserves the most basic concepts of all the foregoing.

(17) Before I get to the conclusions concerning planes, anima, and magic, I ask two things. First, please do not dismiss this thread because it is draws on headcannon - it draws upon and deepens many parts of RuneScape's existing lore, and I hope it contributes significantly to our understanding of planes, magic, and anima, regardless of its canonical status.

(18)Second, I would like to propose this thread as a model for the future development of the lore in these particular areas. I fear that planes, anima, and magic have been developed with excessive caution, as though any such lore would be immediately enshrined in an unquestionable science. On the contrary, it is appropriate for such broad topics to be developed within specific traditions. Imagine a future Saradominist magic theory, a Guthixian planar theory, a Fremennik theory of anima, etc. This shift in direction will equip Jmods with both greater freedom and more resources for the development of RuneScape's lore.

- reserved for additions to Part I -

- reserved for additions to Part I -

- reserved for additions to Part I -