Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

'Fictional' vs. 'Real' magic

Page: (1)2 3

14:17 / 27.11.03

Truth can be disguised as Fiction.
(e.g. 'Promethea', Alan Moore)

Fiction can be disguised as truth.
(e.g. 'Witch Cult in Western Europe', Margaret Murray)

Postmodern theorists tell us we understand the world as a narrative, a story, what we think of as Reality is in fact a story we tell ourselves or our brains make up for us out of the flood of sense data.

People often say 'You don't think you can really do magic do you?' or 'It's all in your head'.

What do you think? Is Superman more or less real than my Aunt Helena? You know a lot about superman, and I just made up my aunt H, there's no such person- how fluid is the boundary between fiction and fact?

Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown

23:26 / 27.11.03

Well, fiction and reality are really what you decide to make of them. Some would say that magic is fiction, but we know it very much to be fact.

In that vain, magic is all an act of Will in the end. To sounds rather badly New Age, I see no reason why a totem has to be an animal or a plant; I could easily imagine someone taking Superman or Green Lantern as their totem if they were big on justice, law, and virtue. If you believe in it, and will it into existance, then sure, you could well invoke Superman when you need to make a titanic effort, remembering of course that Superman wouldn't hold with immoral behavior.

For things like the Corpus Hermeticum, I'm not really sure that we can know for sure whether or not its true simply becuase history can be false. We only know history becuase of the documents and relics that we have of it, but how do we know that existance wasn't suddenly created fifteen minutes ago and that everything we know as "memory" is actually simply constructed strings of programming code spliced together by a bunch of deific computer hackers high on Ambrosia Cola and smoking joints of Sacred Papyri? We don't. Therefore we choose to accept something in the past as truth, and thus it becomes truth.

The borders between fiction and fact are as fluid as our belief in them. It is entirley possible that every single religion in the world is complete fiction, but yet to their worshippers they are indisutable facts.

12:26 / 28.11.03

Well, as to whether it's all "in our heads" or not, my answer would be yes or no. I was doing a talk on magick at a Unitarian Universalist church awhile back, and pointed out that when in discussion with an open-minded, but scientifically based person they will gently argue against every experience that you mention. It seems like they have an explaination for everything, that is, until it enters what I'm fond of calling the "weird zone". You know, the really bizarre unexplainable happening that simply can't be explained as having been in your head, because it is witnessed by more than one person, and is a physical manifestation. An example of this with myself was an instance when a female mage came to my house, ( a long story that was bizarre in it's own right, but which I won't get into here.) We sat and talked about magickal matters for some time. All of a sudden, the percieved temperature of the room dropped, and my spine began to tingle. Now a scientific mind would say, "Well, you have this magickal person in your place, you believe in it yourself so you gave yourself this 'sensation'". At the exact point that I percieved this, she looked at me and said, "Something is here." Scientific person: She read the distress on your face, and played on it." OK, I can buy that. I ran into the bedroom to get my banishing tool, where I found my partner on the floor unconscious and curled into a fetal ball, moaning. This is a situation that has now entered the "weird zone". At this point, the scientific person thinks that you are BS'ing them. You have gone beyond their point of reference. After the banishing, my partner suddenly came to, and was dumbfounded as to what had happened. Phil Hine wrote about this in "Condensed Chaos", (the book version), in which he described a friend of his noticing a "thing on the landing". They went out and sure enough, there was a "thing on the landing". They began to communicate with it, and it began to communicate back. When things enter the weird zone, you know that not ALL of it is in your head.

12:03 / 20.02.04

And sometimes you find things out there for which the truth/fiction dilemma becomes the main (only?) point.

Is this a weird sort of performance art, the pursuits of an obsessive lawyer with too much odd knowledge in his head, a graphic designer's magic spree, or a collective spontaneous creation of something along the "fictional magic" lines?

The May Day Mystery

(Yes, I'm guilty of having dabbled there once, too.)

11:39 / 06.06.06

*bump*

Can you use a fictional paradigm (like a roleplaying game for example) to achieve real effects?
I'm a big Mage fan for example, but I don't think as it's written it's a functional magical system, it's a bit of fiction that's really well researched and based on real magical systems.

11:52 / 06.06.06

you can use anything. check out some chaos magick stuff on the web. i do think - this is more a recent thing - that fiction can offer us a great deal spiritually because it is so often a point of contact with the archetypal realm which is a realm of magick and spiritual illumination - cf: Jung's ideas. i do agree that ultimately "reality" is an interpretation, a narrative and "truth" is formlessness and anarchy (perhaps the veils of negative existence?) - thus all is fiction and one simply chooses the most convenient and believable fiction for oneself whether that be Xianity or Oblivion Elder Scrolls.

12:00 / 06.06.06

Chaos magic, eh? Sounds interesting. Can't say I've ever heard of that before, would you care to elaborate on that a bit further?

[head/desk interface]

12:20 / 06.06.06

Yes. You can use elements of fiction to attain magical results. You can call on Batman and have a conversation with something that doesnt mind being addressed as Batman. You can borrow likely elements from an RPG and get it to work as magic.

But, in my experience of doing this, which is fairly extensive really, I've found it ultimately unsatisfying and fairly shallow. I went through the phase that I think everyone goes through of inventing my own version of the LBRP substituting the Archangels and Godnames with everything from WWW wrestlers to the A-team to the Tellytubbies. All very diverting and iconoclastic. I got results. It works. You can use it to "banish".

However, in my hurry to do something "cooler" or "more updated" than the LBRP, I overlooked the fact that I actual knew fuck all about the real mysteries of the ritual i was superficially riffing on. Ten years of exploration later and I'm still unlocking new things about that simple rite that would have totally eluded me had I stuck with the tellytubby version under the mistaken assumption that the details didn't matter.

Yes, you can base a magical system around the Vampire RPG and you will get some results. Will those results have the same kind of depth, mystery, challenge, and power as something like Vodou or Qabala? No. They won't. You might, at an intellectual level, think that they will. But they won't. Fiction is the work of one author or a committee of editors, as opposed to the mysteries of an entire culture that have developed organically and been added to and updated for thousands of years. There is a richness and depth that is missing from the fiction stuff that precludes it from functioning at anything more than a superficial level.

You can get it to work. But I'm not really interested in the kind of results you get from it. It's just shallow end of the pool dicking around and I've done enough of it now to not really want to do it anymore. There are bigger fish to fry.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:13 / 06.06.06

Anth, I don't want to be a bastard about this but are we reading the same forum?

13:33 / 06.06.06

It's an interesting debate about when something new has enough pull/presence to be integrated into the older traditions or when it resonates enough to be a decent modern stand in.

There is some highly subjective work done on how modern ideas impact the Daimonic. Within Fortean research this applies to the evolution of the Norse blonde super human extraterrestrial of the 50's sightings to the modern grey. There has been some speculation on why this Daimonic manifestation shifted and how, but the reports allow us a reasonable array of statistic to say it has.

Many magical faiths have mechanisms to include modern manifestations. Some pantheons are inclusive of foreign Deities when the practitioners place a value on the new God or equate it with an an existing principle.

I would go so far as to say that a robust faith is a flexible one, which allows for adaptation. Those that cannot sustain dialogue with new ideas (even by simply relating them to old ones) cease to have meaningful exchanges with their practitioners.

That said, it has been stated elsewhere that reinventing the wheel is a shameful waste of one's energy. This is especially true when a large number of people over many years have made an epic effort to keep that information available and to keep it vital.

Yet should something new arise it should not be dismissed out of hand merely because it is not of a venerable tradition. It needs to be examined and treated with due interest until it is understood. Even then it may not surpass an existing tool but it may gift us a fresh perspective.

13:53 / 06.06.06

You can get it to work but in the same way you can get a squeaky plastic toy hammer to work. It looks like a hammer, it's based on a hammer, but for any useful work you need a real hammer, innit.

15:42 / 06.06.06

well some modern uses of the imagination are useful. It is a lot easier to say to a new ritual worker "Imagine a forcefield surrounding you" knowing that because of comics, movies and the like they should be able to do so readily. Or for OBE work to be able to say 'x-ray vision'. Some concepts are packaged a bit more readily now.

Myths work only as long as they are able to resonate with us and new variations come into existence all the time.
While I tend to think summoning Batman is hindered by the fact you-know-he-is-not-real, using the idea of Batman to inform how you can harnass your shadow crazy side maybe useful.

If you use narrative magic you should be familiar with traditional storytelling. A great storyteller knows what pieces of the story are eternal and which can be adjusted to suit the purpose of the telling.

Unconditional Love

16:17 / 06.06.06

I think atheist secular humanism needed to reinvent religion and spirituality in other forms, i think it does this through what it calls fiction.

I think with this comes the instinctual process of spirituality, so people turn to an acceptable cultural medium within a largely atheist christian culture to accomodate this, on one end athiest magicians may be anti christian so embrace the forms of an atheist culture as spiritual, others may be more comfortable with christianity so embrace more esoteric forms of christianity, and others may opt for looking outside the bounds of there upbringing to look at other cultures that exsist around them, others may note the coming together and fusion of cultures around and adopt a very eclectic practice.

Its hard to say what makes some thing fiction and another thing fact, because with time what is fiction may become fact and vice a versa. In that respect i think distinguishing fiction from fact is useful in the time it takes place but not as an overall rule of thumb.

I agree that a system should be flexible and open to accomodate change, but would add that when a majority of that system is ready for that change to take place, the tradition will become flexible enough to allow that to happen, in the mean time a given practice may actually remain relatively tough and traditionalist.

I think anything can teach us something, it depends on wether we are willing to learn or not. Having learnt a thing if it is disagreeable it can always be rejected or adapted depending on circumstance.

When dealing with a tradition thou i think it wise to remember that you are coming to it, it has a wealth to teach you. Generally many traditions demand some form of self sacrafice in one form or another time,energy, commitment. I think many people are used to buying and consuming what they want when they want it so have a problem with this (can also be regarded as a christian trait, but is pretty much within most traditions i have encountered).

I think modern fictional magical systems largely play into this sense of modern convnience, but i am also capable of recognising that they may in and of themselves become traditions in the future and face similar dilemmas to what there older counter parts are encountering today.

16:32 / 06.06.06

A great storyteller knows what pieces of the story are eternal and which can be adjusted to suit the purpose of the telling.

That's true. But, is everything fiction? Is everything a story?

17:32 / 06.06.06

i don't really mean that - what i do mean is that truth is ultimately formless or at least difficult to describe and that forms are convenient fictions. forms can become though not only just a convenient way to describe forces but the very forms in which they are imprisoned and misunderstood. there is "stuff" though and there certainly is magick. which will need a personal experience to see.

18:07 / 06.06.06

That's true. But, is everything fiction? Is everything a story?

Depends on your magical system.

I can say that while everything in my cosmology is a story, not everything is a fiction.
I can also say that while some of the myths may not have occured in tangible lumpy daily fact they maybe completely true in terms of operating impact.

If I may go somewhat sideways (I ask for your indulgence please)....

Let us say a witness tells you they witnessed a saber tooth tiger standing in a local park real as day. Furthermore you have enough evidence to sustain that the witness is very reliable and not prone to phantom imaginings. The average researcher may consider only a few options: (removing Occam razor like the possibility of a technical trick or film prop being stumbled across)

1) the witness did see an animal which resembled a saber tooth tiger.

2) the witness did not see an animal matching that description but suffered from a hallucination.

3) the witness did see an animal but their imagination altered the perceived outcome.
(aka ginger tom becomes a lion)

Now let us say our researcher is also aware of some magical possiblities, we can then add:

4) the witness saw a projection/illusion of the animal.

5) the witness saw an animal which was a saber tooth tiger.

6) the witness saw something which took the form of a saber tooth tiger.

(yay for smilodon!)

Besides being silly, I do have a point...

If you cannot come up with a saber tooth tiger during your research to prove the absolute tangible poop-dropping deer-snacking realness of the tiger all you have is the story. You could then bring to bear whatever reasoning tools you would like to determine if your witness actually saw one.

If you think I'm being too silly I will redirect you to fictions that emotionally scar and ruin lives, those of regressed/reclaimed childhood/satanic abuse. Even once exposed as fictions these 'remembered' events damage lives and cannot be easily dismissed.

Stories (even fictional ones) have power as we can see in legal cases of libel where once the facts are straightened out, the social damage is still present.

18:11 / 06.06.06

forms can become though not only just a convenient way to describe forces but the very forms in which they are imprisoned and misunderstood.

Erm... I'm not sure I'm following you dude.

18:40 / 06.06.06

I can say that while everything in my cosmology is a story, not everything is a fiction. xk

Fair enough, and I agree stories have power, but the story we tell ourselves is not the world, the magical myrtle map is not the terrible turtle territory. Spells from Buffy, LotR, Ars Magica and Happy Rotter simply do not work as they are written. I can shout bad latin and wave a wand but it won't do what it does for Willow or Harry.

19:13 / 06.06.06

Can Gandalf teach us anything? Is the Corpus Hermeticum a work of fiction? Is it valuable to distinguish fiction and fact?

I get the real feeling this isn't totally relevant to this thread but from just reading the first part, one thing that fiction does in my view is show you the possibility of magic.

I mean most of us read LOTR or similar when we were younger and probably thought 'Cool, I wonder what it would be like to use magic', not saying it directly pushed you to look for magic or how to do it, but it opened your mind to the fact if it's written about even in fiction then there could well be a real basis for it.

The one thing that works of fiction teach me is how much my morals play in my stuff. You can read about how a fictional character acts and gain a three person view on how your practises could be seen or what consquences could occur.

19:14 / 06.06.06

...agreed...

but can you state confidently it never does or never has? I personally wouldn't bet the farm on flying pencils saving my ass but I do know some really weird things happen.

I feel fairly confident in stating that someone could do a badass divination using only old Crow comics or a thrown slice of pizza sliding down a wall.

I'm also not comfortable declaring that I will never see someone wave a magic wand and have 'stuff' go all f/x and then High Weirdness occur. It might not be Slayerverse flavored granted, but still...

19:37 / 06.06.06

I think it roughly means the map is not the territory...

22:25 / 06.06.06

I'm chipping in a bit late on the thread, but here goes...

It does seem to be true that older magical structures have more kick to them, they have so much built into them and behind them that the difference is blatant in even the most cursory of scans, but I also strongly agree with the idea that modern stories and structures still have a definate use.
I have in the past year used the characters in Buffy as archetypes within a magical setting (I was running a workshop with two friends) and what we found was that people got a helluva lot out of it, mostly because they relaxed and let it work without worrying over getting things perfect, or, I suspect, expecting anything to happen. So, to use the hammer example, perhaps its better for people to get the feel of how a hammer works by playing with a toy hammer and then stepping up to a real hammer when they're strong enough to pick it up? Like the difference between a wooden practice sword and a sharp metal blade, they handle differently but at least you get the feel for the shape of a sword, and the confidence not to freak yourself out with it.
I do wonder if this would lead to people being overconfident with bigger, older things because they are used to playing with something that works (to a point?) but hasn't got the weight of centuries behind it.
I'm thinking that perhaps for some people this level of "superficiality" is enough and that makes it worthwhile for them, like some people are happy practising for their entire life with a wooden sword.

I have read much fantasy, and I do find that I have gleaned information from the stories that helped me fit magical happenings or feelings into an understandable framework, which gave me a point to work from. If its true that we understand all of our experience via stories we tell ourselves then I guess fictional stories can give us a workable framework if we take the human aspect of them, rather than the special effects, although I shall take the advice above and not totally discount special effects as real.

22:27 / 06.06.06

And on the pizza divination... I've seen it done!

(Well, a variation, divining using leftovers on dinner plates was quite popular at one Witchcamp I was at!)

22:53 / 06.06.06

to elaborate further - i mean that forms can limit the way that we relate to forces. we can see x and refuse to see all that is not x. in that way we become imprisoned in a particular belief structure and limit ourselves to the alternatives. that's how it works microcosmically. on a macrosmic scale i think that the way we perceive & understand forces actually affects those forces themselves in the respect that we have an effect on the whole.

an easy instance of force/form polarity is for example comparing and contrasting the deity Pan in Crowley's Thelemic system with the Xian devil. i'm sorry if that's not very clear. it is difficult to talk about much of this stuff. but one tries.

ORA ORA ORA ORAAAA!!

07:18 / 07.06.06

It's just shallow end of the pool dicking around and I've done enough of it now to not really want to do it anymore. There are bigger fish to fry

There's a good reason to dick around in the shallow end of the pool, though, if you don't know how to swim yet, surely?

I mean, I sure as hell can't swim. I'm one of those tiny kids screaming about the very idea about being in the water (it's cold!), but jealous of all the fun the cool kids are having, splashing around.

But if there's no reason to ever play in the shallow end, does that mean it's safe to just jump into the deep end?

Or will the deep end just not be there until you've figured out how to swim already?

I'm sorry if I'm distracting you while you're doing laps, but sometimes it's good to hear training advice from people who know what they're doing, not just random swimsites on the net.

To actually express my question without tedious metaphor stretching: do you think it's better for someone to jump right in to an old magical tradition or to see what works for them for enough time to convince themselves that something does, in fact, work? And then (hopefully) grow from there? Is the first option even safe, assuming you jump respectfully and with at least some idea what you're getting into?

Sorry for asking stupid questions out of thread!

09:04 / 07.06.06

On the deep end/shallow end- I don't think it's like that, with Charmed at one end and Abramelin at the other. It's more like talking about swimming versus actually swimming.

On the pizza divination- that's basically cold reading. I've read devastatingly accurate fortunes from hawaiian shirts, rose petals, moles, ten sided dice... but they're not comparable to Tarot readings, it's just asserting likelihoods with confidence and flair, Derren Brown style.

09:45 / 07.06.06

I think it's best to do whatever you feel drawn towards doing, when you start to get into magic. If a magical system based around the gameshow "Bullseye" or the sitcom "On the buses" happens to float your boat, then go for it and see where it gets you. Feel free to do whatever you want to do, but keep in mind that magic is a stranger beast than the intellectual models we tend to build around it. Don't try to confine it. Let it breathe.

I don't personally have any problems at all with people experimenting with whichever strange roads their creativity leads them to. If you don't do that, you're not going to learn anything. Make mistakes, get your fingers burned, you often learn from what goes wrong more than you do when things go as anticipated.

What I find problematic is when people have some experiences with a fictional system, get some results and a bit of weirdness, and then make the automatic assumption that all of the different cultural trappings of the world's magical systems are inconsequential and meaningless. Asserting that the mysteries of "The Dukes of Hazzard" will offer the same depth and initiatory journey as the Yoruban Mysteries, often without having really had much experience of either.

I dunno, ten years in and it feels as if I'm only now starting to get a glimpse of the real stuff. Magic is a Big Game. No, even bigger than that. There is so much depth, and a lot of it can be readily accessed by exploring the deeper mysteries of the world's magical traditions. If you don't do that, and learn from the magic bequeathed to us by our ancestors, you are just stuck in the workshop trying to re-invent the wheel over and over again, when you could be piloting a living, sentient were-spaceship through multi-dimensional space, as it were.

But if you want to experiment and get a feel for this stuff by exploring fictional magic, then go for your life. Let Bo, Luke and Daisy be your Trinity, and Boss Hogg the Great Adversary. Rise on the planes in the General Lee and confound your inner Sheriff Roscoe at every turn. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that the game you are playing is necessarily the only game that is going on, or that it's rules and operating system are universal principles.

10:33 / 07.06.06

Let Bo, Luke and Daisy be your Trinity, and Boss Hogg the Great Adversary.

See, to a certain extent I agree that you can use whatever you like, but I'm more concerned that the structure is what's sacrificed. You can replace deities with superheroes but if you don't have a framework to slot them into it's going to be not only reinventing the wheel but going off-road and into the sea wondering why your square wheel won't work. If your practice is based on bad latin changing the world directly a la Hogwarts it's not going to get very far.
I think it's fair to use either Thoth or Mercury depending on your preference, the underlying meaning is more important than the mask. But if you don't grasp that underlying meaning in the first place, if you're making up a system of magic whole cloth from (say) Zatanna and the Scarlet Witch, it's not going to work very well, it's going to be entertainment not magic.

Goodness Gracious Meme

10:54 / 07.06.06

This is probably a bit of a tangent, but I wonder if anyone has found that magic, as it works for them, is described better in fiction than in 'how to' books.

It's a bit random, but it strikes me that one thing fictional forms might have is a potential to give an impression/plant notions of magic in someone, which they then want to work towards. I guess I'm thinking of a kind of poetics of magic and that fiction might be a good place to do this?

I've heard several people I know reference Diana Wynne-Jones in this context, and wonder if anyone has a similar 'fictional' world that describes magic in a way that they find useful.

Unconditional Love

11:15 / 07.06.06

Fictional facts and factual fiction? Why does a philosophy need to set up a duality of fact and fiction to begin with, what purpose does it serve? and what philosophy in particular does it serve?

11:31 / 07.06.06

This is probably a bit of a tangent, but I wonder if anyone has found that magic, as it works for them, is described better in fiction than in 'how to' books.
Many people have commented that Terry Pratchett demonstrates a commendable grasp of magic and of the people who do it in his books. Titter ye not - Pratchett is a lot sharper than you'd imagine from the covers.

12:09 / 07.06.06

magic, as it works for them, is described better in fiction than in 'how to' books.

I'd reference DWJ too, I was inspired as a child by the Earthsea books, I find the tone of a lot of magical realism to reflect the desire to see the magical in the mundane (Marquez & Borges for example). A lot of fiction is informed by the occult too of course, there's a lot of bleed bboth ways. I recently read The Alchymical Wedding, a bit of fiction with some realistic magic in, but also found an entry for the Scarlet Witch in the Encyclopedia of Witchcraft. Some fiction *can* be more useful than some 'fact'.
Not Pratchett though.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

12:33 / 07.06.06

Many people have commented that Terry Pratchett demonstrates a commendable grasp of magic and of the people who do it in his books.

I don't hear anyone tittering at that concept--in fact, it's practically an article of faith for a great many people. I don't want to be horrible or anything but I'm getting a bit sick of hearing it! Not that it isn't true up to a point, sure, but doesn't anyone else reckon that the Pratchett model of How Magic Works is a more than a bit limiting? Not to mention the now-hackneyed model of deity and devotion presented in Small Gods, which seems to have become the standard text for spirit-work and theurgy.

I'm with Quants here. I think we need a DWJ thread.

(Oh dear, sorry about the rant!)

14:45 / 07.06.06

I've always believed the difficulty with self-systems or even young shared systems was two-fold:

1. The symbols/etiquette have not been worked or shaped enough to be a clear tool when communicating with the self or the Others.

2. The error part of trial 'n' error can be pretty heinous and you have too little information on it to inform your choices.

I like a lot of new tarot decks but when the artist/illustrator goes too far off the symbol structure embedded it can lead to confusion. I have to take a lot longer to grok the meaning of a card in my divination because I know a part of myself is being pulled after the new symbol. I can sort it out after a few runs but there are reasons for simple decks. Or making your own with your understanding of the cards as detailed classically.

For a long time I disdained short cut ad-hoc ritual/divination on my part or others because I felt the evidence underscored caution. Learn the language properly first before you start in on the slang.

I've also had the issue with modern neo pagan fiction ascribing attributes to existing Gods and systems that I have good reason to believe are not only crap, but distracting ill informed crap (I say this from both an academic stand point and from my personal experiences). However, I'm not the religion police so I tend to keep my mouth shut when other folks are going about their business, unless they ask me directly. It strikes me that the disinformation either doesn't matter, or if it does, they'll find out on their own. After all I have no idea when someone manages to get a direct dictation from the Divine, and this is what ultimately keeps me open to fictional work.

I've been reminded recently that while intuition is great it cannot always stand on its own without training. If you're interested in mountain climbing, do you want to invent the techniques yourself or learn from an experienced climber who in turn learned from another? Magic is not the safest of art forms.

15:11 / 07.06.06

MC:
don't hear anyone tittering at that concept--in fact, it's practically an article of faith for a great many people. I don't want to be horrible or anything but I'm getting a bit sick of hearing it!
Blimey - I've always heard many more people slagging TP books off than promoting them! I wouldn't advance TP as a model, but people I respect do take him moderately seriously, however...

doesn't anyone else reckon that the Pratchett model of How Magic Works is a more than a bit limiting?
I would hope so

. I think TP is particularly good at character portraits of magical groups; as Steve Wilson said, TP understands people, so he understands how people use magic. I think his descriptions of magical mechanisms are nicely honed satires rather than inspirational; three parts Margaret Murray to two parts of liber Null to one part Satanic Bible.

I'm with Quants here. I think we need a DWJ thread.Never heard of DWJ so would be useful.

Page: (1)2 3