I find Tolkien (and perhaps the whole distinction between magic and enchantment) somewhat paradoxical. It is not as if he did not appreciate techne. In fact, he draws much attention to the extraordinary techne of the Elves. The reforging of Anduril is a pivotal moment for the good guys in LOTR, and is certainly an example of techne. And presumably he understood how indebted he was to techne for his own way of life, even while he hated the incoming techne of the internal combustion engine etc. So the way he couches this dichotomy seems lopsided. There is something else going on. Is it that he is using magic and enchantment more as proxies for the distinction between domination and dominion? In saying that enchantment is a kind of magic, he certainly suggests a continuum. But if that is the proper framing, I would actually say magic is a kind of enchantment; domination is dominion run wild and become idolatrous, rather than dominion being domination moderated down and put in its proper place. Dominion is primary, since that is the material end for which God made man.
Bnonn, thanks for the reply! I always appreciate your insights into these matters.
Yes, I think you are correct and that seems to me to be that case. Tolkien does say that enchantment is a kind of magic, but on a different pole than, let's call it "Captial M" Magic which is aimed at domination. Curry in his essay in Mallorn also points out the paradoxical nature of the distinction.
I have certainly spoken that way of this very thing myself. I have referred to what Tolkien calls Magic as "the dark enchantment."
The way I look at it is that technological discoveries are magic achieved through physical means/mediums. magic can also be achieved through non-physical means/mediums which is what we are more used to calling magic. Scientism is believing in the physical means as the only way to achieve magic. I would be fine with a statement like "magic is inevitable".
In the book "The Monsters from the ID" , Jones does a good job of picking out how the enlightenment thinkers viewed the occult and magic. They didn't see the rise of the physical sciences as shirking off occultism, but rather as another route for the technique of magic and domination of others in the primary world.
A few examples of the same effect from physical magic (science) as immaterial magic.
- Telepathy -> Communication over cell phones (possibly microchips in the head)
- spells -> mass propaganda, curses through poisoned food supply to "curse" people with cancer etc., pornography, television
- magic items -> those things powered by electrons (invisible power nodes), like Frankenstein's monster
Not sure if that was helpful but would love your thoughts. Are you interested in doing an episode on this topic? :)
I find Tolkien (and perhaps the whole distinction between magic and enchantment) somewhat paradoxical. It is not as if he did not appreciate techne. In fact, he draws much attention to the extraordinary techne of the Elves. The reforging of Anduril is a pivotal moment for the good guys in LOTR, and is certainly an example of techne. And presumably he understood how indebted he was to techne for his own way of life, even while he hated the incoming techne of the internal combustion engine etc. So the way he couches this dichotomy seems lopsided. There is something else going on. Is it that he is using magic and enchantment more as proxies for the distinction between domination and dominion? In saying that enchantment is a kind of magic, he certainly suggests a continuum. But if that is the proper framing, I would actually say magic is a kind of enchantment; domination is dominion run wild and become idolatrous, rather than dominion being domination moderated down and put in its proper place. Dominion is primary, since that is the material end for which God made man.
Bnonn, thanks for the reply! I always appreciate your insights into these matters.
Yes, I think you are correct and that seems to me to be that case. Tolkien does say that enchantment is a kind of magic, but on a different pole than, let's call it "Captial M" Magic which is aimed at domination. Curry in his essay in Mallorn also points out the paradoxical nature of the distinction.
I have certainly spoken that way of this very thing myself. I have referred to what Tolkien calls Magic as "the dark enchantment."
The way I look at it is that technological discoveries are magic achieved through physical means/mediums. magic can also be achieved through non-physical means/mediums which is what we are more used to calling magic. Scientism is believing in the physical means as the only way to achieve magic. I would be fine with a statement like "magic is inevitable".
In the book "The Monsters from the ID" , Jones does a good job of picking out how the enlightenment thinkers viewed the occult and magic. They didn't see the rise of the physical sciences as shirking off occultism, but rather as another route for the technique of magic and domination of others in the primary world.
A few examples of the same effect from physical magic (science) as immaterial magic.
- Telepathy -> Communication over cell phones (possibly microchips in the head)
- spells -> mass propaganda, curses through poisoned food supply to "curse" people with cancer etc., pornography, television
- magic items -> those things powered by electrons (invisible power nodes), like Frankenstein's monster
Not sure if that was helpful but would love your thoughts. Are you interested in doing an episode on this topic? :)