The Return To Innocence

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAnalyzedMagic
‎"Empirical evidence and experimentation are the cornerstone of the scientific method, and there is no reason that it should be any less effective at discovering the details of a self-consistent series of rules just because it's called 'magic' rather than 'physics'."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicByAnyOtherName
"Note that 'magic' in our vocabulary means something that breaks physical laws. Someone who was born and raised in a consistently magical universe would see magic as logical and sensible, much like electricity seems to us. What we call magic, they would call physics."

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/D%20-%20Chinese%20Mahayana%20Buddhism/Authors/Hsing%20Yun/On%20Magic%20and%20the%20Supernatural/The%20Buddhist%20Perspective%20on%20Magic%20and%20Supernatural.htm

"Magic, as we know it, is essentially a type of energy that can be used to defy the supposed rules of our universe. The energy you use in your martial arts is a variety of it." -Unknown, from this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Webcomic/ElGoonishShive

I tried to explain the practice of magic to my super-skeptic mother this way. I think she got it, sort of. Now I try to just not say anything that would make people laugh at me, because the phrase "I am a magic practitioner and it involves physics and art" makes people stare at me like I'm insane. I probably am insane, but whatever. As Twilight Sparkle said, "Magic is something you study and practice. It only happens when you decide to do it. It's meant to make something specific that you want to happen happen." Wait, then again, nope. That doesn't always work. Because wild magic is wild. Sometimes it just doesn't work the way you want it to. Oh, that's life.

Meh. Last time Adam taught me lessons, I failed miserably at half of them, but that was due to lack of confidence. Which is true of everything.

Hell, I just know that I Sense Things and Attract Energies. I don't know why, how, what, who, whatever. But, you know, whatever.

You know, I really wonder...
There is so much apparent research about Cerebral Palsy in children...
Where are the studies on adults? Who wonders what happens when those children grow up? What studies are being conducted on the adult patients who must live as such?
And I mean the mild cases, like me. The ones who can talk and walk and function well enough. We're still here. We're still damaged. Hello there!

Who wants to look at our mildly to moderately damaged brains? Who wants to see what kind of neural pathways have died and reformed and rebuilt and remapped over decades of life? Who wants to figure out the various comorbid disorders, and oh there are so many? Anxiety disorders. Depression. Seizures. Chronic Pain. Joint problems. Nerve problems. Sensory problems. Hypersensitivity. Obsessive and compulsive disorders. Personality disorders. Neurological problems. Neuromuscular problems. Neurobiological disorders. Endocrine problems. Skin problems. And so on, seriously, it's a long long list.

I really want to know. Where are those doctors? I want to be their test subject. I spend so much time with my brain and I barely know it. Nearly thirty-three years, and what the hell happened to me? I mean, besides the extremely premature birth, the collapsed lungs, and the periventricular leukomalacia, of couse. Hand-wave.

The last time I saw my brain was from an MRI ten years ago. Think about what has happened since then. Oh, my. So much sparking in my brain, all those neurons dancing, all those holes being eaten by seizures and pain and mental sicknesses. I want to be committed to Sparkle Motion, but only the right kind. For science.

I want to be a science experiment. I want to donate my body to science dinner, as Dr. Zoidberg would say.
Johns Hopkins and NIH are Metro accessible, after all. Thinking, thinking.

You know, I really wonder...
There is so much apparent research about Cerebral Palsy in children...
Where are the studies on adults? Who wonders what happens when those children grow up? What studies are being conducted on the adult patients who must live as such?
And I mean the mild cases, like me. The ones who can talk and walk and function well enough. We're still here. We're still damaged. Hello there!

Who wants to look at our mildly to moderately damaged brains? Who wants to see what kind of neural pathways have died and reformed and rebuilt and remapped over decades of life? Who wants to figure out the various comorbid disorders, and oh there are so many? Anxiety disorders. Depression. Seizures. Chronic Pain. Joint problems. Nerve problems. Sensory problems. Hypersensitivity. Obsessive and compulsive disorders. Personality disorders. Neurological problems. Neuromuscular problems. Neurobiological disorders. Endocrine problems. Skin problems. And so on, seriously, it's a long long list.

I really want to know. Where are those doctors? I want to be their test subject. I spend so much time with my brain and I barely know it. Nearly thirty-three years, and what the hell happened to me? I mean, besides the extremely premature birth, the collapsed lungs, and the periventricular leukomalacia, of couse. Hand-wave.

The last time I saw my brain was from an MRI ten years ago. Think about what has happened since then. Oh, my. So much sparking in my brain, all those neurons dancing, all those holes being eaten by seizures and pain and mental sicknesses. I want to be committed to Sparkle Motion, but only the right kind. For science.

I want to be a science experiment. I want to donate my body to science dinner, as Dr. Zoidberg would say.
Johns Hopkins and NIH are Metro accessible, after all. Thinking, thinking.

A comment made by a user named Hierophant, found here:

"LOL @ science for trying to pin spirituality as brain damage. LOL @ Livescience even more for grasping at articles that already grasp at straws.
You know, I wish the profiles kept links to ALL our previous comments. I'd post a link to the comment I made months ago where I stated why science and religion have the exact same faults for the exact same reasons, in spite of methodological differences.
The funny part is, science depends more on spirituality than religion does. With religion you can make up anything you like out in La La Land, it doesn't have to be practical, or make any kind of sense. Science (at its best) reaches for higher conceptualization and tries to turn it into numbers. Art reaches for higher conceptualization and tries to turn it into sounds and imagery.
It does depend how you define spirituality though. Minus other possible attachments, I define it as applying non-reflexive cognitive processes. Any animal has reflex. It's spiritual when it's a choice, especially in matters that don't directly concern your well-being. That "reaching" I mentioned earlier is spiritual, because it moves beyond our basic needs. Before Galileo we had the idea that heavier objects fall to the earth faster than lighter ones. It took balls to shirk convention and try and prove something otherwise - you can bet your last dollar doing something like that is spiritual.
Personally I've also seen the application of spirituality as distinctly non-religious. Many people make a distinction between the two (I bet most number-thumpers here would be surprised to know many spiritual people hate religious people even more than scientific people do). As such the result is a rather amorphous concept - you do the better thing, even if it's harder, because it develops you more, but because it also has larger implications within familial and societal units. So it becomes part self-development, part (mutual) survival mechanism, part inspiration for development on all fronts, part pre-scientific explanatory device.
Before science kills that last part, it better be able to explain the universe and everything in it. We haven't even mapped the bottom of the oceans yet, so don't get too uppity and waste valuable resources with studies like this."

A comment made by a user named Hierophant, found here:

"LOL @ science for trying to pin spirituality as brain damage. LOL @ Livescience even more for grasping at articles that already grasp at straws.
You know, I wish the profiles kept links to ALL our previous comments. I'd post a link to the comment I made months ago where I stated why science and religion have the exact same faults for the exact same reasons, in spite of methodological differences.
The funny part is, science depends more on spirituality than religion does. With religion you can make up anything you like out in La La Land, it doesn't have to be practical, or make any kind of sense. Science (at its best) reaches for higher conceptualization and tries to turn it into numbers. Art reaches for higher conceptualization and tries to turn it into sounds and imagery.
It does depend how you define spirituality though. Minus other possible attachments, I define it as applying non-reflexive cognitive processes. Any animal has reflex. It's spiritual when it's a choice, especially in matters that don't directly concern your well-being. That "reaching" I mentioned earlier is spiritual, because it moves beyond our basic needs. Before Galileo we had the idea that heavier objects fall to the earth faster than lighter ones. It took balls to shirk convention and try and prove something otherwise - you can bet your last dollar doing something like that is spiritual.
Personally I've also seen the application of spirituality as distinctly non-religious. Many people make a distinction between the two (I bet most number-thumpers here would be surprised to know many spiritual people hate religious people even more than scientific people do). As such the result is a rather amorphous concept - you do the better thing, even if it's harder, because it develops you more, but because it also has larger implications within familial and societal units. So it becomes part self-development, part (mutual) survival mechanism, part inspiration for development on all fronts, part pre-scientific explanatory device.
Before science kills that last part, it better be able to explain the universe and everything in it. We haven't even mapped the bottom of the oceans yet, so don't get too uppity and waste valuable resources with studies like this."

Oh, now, this is brilliant. Goji berries and acai berries do contain the proper amino acid blend than helps maintain healthy youthful skin. I was right. So, technically, if you take the oil or extract of goji or acai, and combine it with, say squalene, hyaluronic acid, MSM, alpha lipoic acid, CoQ10, and certain plant and fruit oils, you really could make an skin moisturizer that actually would slow and smooth the symptoms of skin aging to some degree, depending on the individual. Vicki, it looks like our idea for the Psyche Lotion really was spot on!
http://www.perfectoils.com.au/goji-berries.htm
http://www.biossential.com/amazon-thunder/acai-articles/acai-berry-information.htm
http://www.happi.com/articles/2008/05/amino-acid-skin-care
I are Research Lady.

Dear Pagans, Writers, and People Who Enjoy Fantasy,

What are your thoughts on magic versus technology, Functional Magic, and Magic Realism as they all relate to each other?
I ask because of a debate Adam and I had about Larry Niven's corollary to Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law, which of course states that "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
Adam fully agrees with this corollary, having been taught this as a teenage magic practitioner. I, however, would like to believe that magic is inherently organic and comes from the person using it, not from a tool or device, because a tool or device would make it technology. Example: Telekinesis. If I were to point at something and make it float, I could call it magic. But if I were to use technology, it would be science, because I wasn't personally involved, having used a machine. Adam counters with the idea of injectible nanotechnology and computers that hook up to people's brains. But, say I, that would still be science, because the scientists are using technology to aid the brain. For me, magic is a pure force, an element beside science, one that is controlled by a person's will. Ah, says Adam, but isn't science? Without people, wouldn't technology be pointless? Both magic and science need someone to wield them!
And now I am left feeling slightly disappointed, because I want magic to be something beyond science and technology, to be... you know, magic. Why wrap a person's broken limb in a cast if you could set the bone with your mind? Why point a gun at someone if you could point your finger and cause a heart attack with your mind? Why use a broom if you could sweep up all the dust with your mind? Etcetera.

And yet, the universe that my novel and other stories are set in use both. Or, more precisely, magic and technology are completely separate. The characters use magic and science whenever one or the other is better applied. Not necessarily Magitech, but I guess maybe technology aids magic and visa versa.

Please offer thoughts, opinions, counterarguments, and suchlike.

Dear Pagans, Writers, and People Who Enjoy Fantasy,

What are your thoughts on magic versus technology, Functional Magic, and Magic Realism as they all relate to each other?
I ask because of a debate Adam and I had about Larry Niven's corollary to Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law, which of course states that "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
Adam fully agrees with this corollary, having been taught this as a teenage magic practitioner. I, however, would like to believe that magic is inherently organic and comes from the person using it, not from a tool or device, because a tool or device would make it technology. Example: Telekinesis. If I were to point at something and make it float, I could call it magic. But if I were to use technology, it would be science, because I wasn't personally involved, having used a machine. Adam counters with the idea of injectible nanotechnology and computers that hook up to people's brains. But, say I, that would still be science, because the scientists are using technology to aid the brain. For me, magic is a pure force, an element beside science, one that is controlled by a person's will. Ah, says Adam, but isn't science? Without people, wouldn't technology be pointless? Both magic and science need someone to wield them!
And now I am left feeling slightly disappointed, because I want magic to be something beyond science and technology, to be... you know, magic. Why wrap a person's broken limb in a cast if you could set the bone with your mind? Why point a gun at someone if you could point your finger and cause a heart attack with your mind? Why use a broom if you could sweep up all the dust with your mind? Etcetera.

And yet, the universe that my novel and other stories are set in use both. Or, more precisely, magic and technology are completely separate. The characters use magic and science whenever one or the other is better applied. Not necessarily Magitech, but I guess maybe technology aids magic and visa versa.

Please offer thoughts, opinions, counterarguments, and suchlike.

The Yawn Explained: It Cools Your Brain

Fibromyalgia seen as a neuropathic pain syndrome

Study Suggests Fibromyalgia Pain is Neuropathic

The Role Of Anticonvulsants in fibromyalgia treatment (mentions Trileptal)

Bacopa is the main brain and nerve herb in Ayurveda (also treats epilepsy and fibromyalgia)

Ayurveda Remedies For Fibromyalgia

Bacopa information (mentions epilepsy and cerebral palsy)