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

Underground > Temple >

A non-prejudcial name for non-magic people.

Page: (1)2

Less searchable M0rd4nt

07:45 / 30.04.05

What term do you use to describe people who aren't involved in what I might loosely describe as "all this"? Not sceptics necessarily, just people who for whatever reason have never taken to magic, divination or whatever.

"Mundanes": I keep coming across this term and the more I see it, the less I like it. It sounds critical, judgy, put-downy. It seems to imply that because we have this set of skills we're better than some notional common herd. Bollocks, frankly. Hard-won and valuable though our abilites may be, they don't make us superior.

Call me PC-gone-maaad if you wish, but I think it's important. If we start getting all food-chainy about this we risk losing touch with the people around us, with society as a whole.

So I'm trying to come up with a word or a short phrase to describe people outside of the ol' art and science, and I'm drawing a blank. Help me out here.

08:40 / 30.04.05

"Normal people"

Don't forget to make the quotation mudra while you say it.

power vacuums & pure moments

08:47 / 30.04.05

A friend says 'exoterics'. Non-magic people is good enough for me. I guess your not too keen on the 'Ultraculture' meme thats been floating around recently then?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:59 / 30.04.05

Reserving judgement on the whole Ultraculture thing until I can be fucked to actually read about it. So far I'm not really seeing anything terribly new but then I'm not really in that headspace right now anyhow.

"Exoterics" is quite nice, although I suppose it could be seen as having connotations of outsiderlyness.

fingerquotes Normal People fingerquotes: Funny, but could get taken the wrong way--"Are you saying I'm NOT normal? Oh. Well, are you saying they're not normal?"

10:03 / 30.04.05

My question is: Why should we call them anything? To me, magick is a learned skill like any other. A martial artist doesn't call everyone around hir "non-martial artists". To do so is to define oneself and others totally in terms of a single learned skill. Seems rather limiting to me.... Yes, I know, magick does encompass one's whole life, at least it should, IMO. But there are other skills and philosophies that have a tendency to do the same.

13:03 / 30.04.05

You mean that muggle is not PC?

Just joking

I do believe that the problem here is that sepparation between us and them... but I feel that the segregation is generated by them... mostly, at least in the society I live.
Perhaps it's a cultural leftover from the "shaman who lives outisde the tribe" thing.

--

14:17 / 30.04.05

Blue Pills?

Just kidding, I don't actually see a need to define them as anything.

15:09 / 30.04.05

To me, magick is a learned skill like any other. A martial artist doesn't call everyone around hir "non-martial artists".
What about "Is it ok to use these moves when confronted by 'non-martial artists'?" When talking about a certain skill set, it is often helpful to consider the views, reactions, cultures of those who do not have that skill set. This thread is to determine what to call the population of people who do not have/utilise the skill set commonly called magick in order to ease such discussions.

I've made a list of suggestions:
People
The Others
Norms
Hatless Ones
Them
non-occultist
non-magick user
non-user
unlabeled
wasted talent
Republicans

You probably noticed that most of these aren't very helpful. The problem is in the question I think. If I have it right, you're looking for a way to label everyone that isn't us in a way that won't sound excluding or placing ourselves in another category. So categorize people but don't let them know we did?

While I have the chance, I'd like to propose a few new names for people involved in "all this":
The Ones With the Hats
Us
Crazy Nutters (with hats)
Spiritual Piss-Takers

Unconditional Love

15:24 / 30.04.05

clients?
customers?

no refunds, no returns, invest as much faith in me as possible please, i like the feed.

nah, just call them names.sticks and stones will.....

15:26 / 30.04.05

Around my parts, we use the term "normals," often seen in the phrase "don't freak the normals!"

When asked (rather snottily) if I meant to imply that the magic-using population was not normal, I famously responded "Yes."

16:58 / 30.04.05

When confronted with having to make a distinction between magickal and non-magickal folk in conversation, I have resorted to using the term "normals". My intent, tho, was not to separate so much as highlight differences. A thin line there, no doubt. Like it or not, there is a need for some type of descriptor.

Half of what we're discussing here is the intent behind the word, no? "Don't freak the normals" carries a connotation that "My parents are normals" or "Some normals seek my help, and I read their cards" do not. Words are powerful things, and us Hatted folk especially should be cognizent of that and use them wisely and without malice.

01:29 / 01.05.05

i really like hatters/nonhatters.

i spent much of last summer in a hat, and came to the conclusion that the purpose of the hat is to channel ones psyche into an identity--perhaps something to do with hiding the crown chakra. since the face and head are our primary vector for recognizing individuals, an accessory on the head is related to establishment of an esoteric name. for example, if you are drawing a stick figure comic, hats are an easy way to identify people. someone in a cowboy hat is a cowboy. someone in a dunce cap is stupid. backwards baseball cap is a hiphopper. even if you plan to characterize your stick figures more deeply, hats are a great way to tell them apart. hair works the same way, hence shaven monks and unshaven hippies. but i think hair doesnt interfere with crown energy; rather it stores it. a hat 'caps' it, altering its purpose.

im not suggesting that people who dont practice 'all this' dont have an identity. (try cancelling negatives out of that sentence. holy crap.) they are their identity: they cant take their hat off, so its part of them. its not that they dont have a hat, but that they dont notice the hat. so 'we' are hatters because we have a collection of hats.

i dont agree with calling 'them' anything that doesnt have a 'not' in front of it. the choice to get involved in 'all this' is not a dual choice, but one among many many many. a doctor or a teacher or a business executive (unwittingly) uses magic in ways the best sorcerer should gasp at. if possible, i suggest calling someone what they are, but i agree its sometimes useful to make a group of outsiders to reinforce the group of insiders. just dont deceive yourself into thinking its anything but that.

'normals' is easy shorthand, but i think we recognize that they arent really normal, right?

i also wonder if we need a third term to distinguish between theoretical and awakened magicians. besides ipsissimus i mean.

01:34 / 01.05.05

'Wankers' ?

03:21 / 01.05.05

I hear "norms" and "mundies" a lot. Always bugged me a bit.

Hatless Ones I rather like. Men Without Hats?

Phex: Dorset Doom

10:38 / 01.05.05

Sorry, what's this 'ultraculture meme' all about then?

11:24 / 01.05.05

I was wondering about *ultra culture* too. Can someone explain it here or start a thread?

I've been thinking it'd be good to find a new word for all practitioners of magic who aren't shamans.

I reckon we also desperately need a word for describing all people don't drive cars and who aren't into sport, perhaps with a word for the overlap between those two sets.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

12:43 / 01.05.05

Okay, fine, it was a stupid idea for a thread. No need to be catty. It's just come up a couple of times in my online noodling around, so I thought I'd throw it out here, that's all.

23:33 / 01.05.05

Sorry MC, I was aiming for *silly* rather than *catty.*

I'm still interested in ultra culture, though. Anyone know any more?

On a related note, someone started a trend amongst Christians for calling people who weren't Christian *pre-Christian* as opposed to *non-Christian.*

Thought that might raise a chuckle and rolled eyes. Or fuel people's Christian phobia. I'm going for the former rather than the latter.

03:49 / 02.05.05

"The Profane" was a good old traditional one that I liked, but the Harry Potter one "Muggles" has a nice ring to it.

03:58 / 02.05.05

Regarding Ultraculture, there's this.

power vacuums & pure moments

08:14 / 02.05.05

Jason Louv's blog - i think ultraculture was his idea.

07:40 / 03.05.05

Someone I knew used to use the phrase "civilians" - luckily they had a sense of humour about it.

11:48 / 03.05.05

judging from some of the posts in this thread, 'uncunts' might be closest.

12:01 / 03.05.05

as a non-using, non-involved citizen (and therefore someone who is able to speak on behalf of everyone like that

i should say that the term use by magicians for me and mine bothers me no more and no less than the term used for us non-roleplayers by dungeons and dragons fans. so, if you want to use muggles and draw on harry potter for your stuff, then fire away really.

Unconditional Love

13:24 / 03.05.05

i dreamt this today, i was a neu aeon identity lawyer in the future apparently and this was one of the issues, here goes, identity in narratives, stories give us some boundaries on how we see the world. most stories have characters that are in some ways considered main, from the bible to harry potter, the construction of narratives around a group of main characters leads to the formulation of wanting to belong to those main characters or grouping, identity becomes formulated around the percieved image of characters in most narrative structures, including technical manuals which put you the reader at the central point of identity. characters that are important are allowed to have names, think t.v and computer games and descriptions in literature of people that become like wallpaper.

learning to think in certain boundaries of narrative can pass into what so many people would call real life, where it becomes desirable to identify ones self as one of these main characters, depending on the stories consumed that could be anything from a magician to buddah to a professional prostitute. narratives can teach people to hold and construct certain images as forms of identity within people.

the narrative of consciousness and the forms within consciousness it identifys with become the rule set consciousness uses to communicate with and percieve the environment and community.

those who control the stories told control the people? far too simplistic. and ive been playing neverwinter nights far too much, i am beginning to dream in the context of the game. what was on trial in my dream were the identity engineeers of the 20th and 21st century for there full knowledge of identity manipulation and its misuse to enslave rather than liberate people. fucking weird dreams lately.

17:21 / 03.05.05

well, being a non-hatter, i like this term. it has a sense of whimsy that some of the other labels don't have. It seems to me that terms like 'normal' or 'mundane' have an inherent 'sense of superiority' to them. it reads too much as rebellious angsty teenager bent on seperating themselves from the herd. I agree with what some others have posted, that magic is one of many ways of experiencing the world, and that those who are serious about their craft should consider speaking about it in proffesional terms. 'Non-occultist', or 'non-magick users' seems fairly straight forward without being condescending.
On the other hand if you really do think that you're a divine couduit through which the Power Cosmic flows, and that mere mortals couldn't possibly understand your burden, then by all means call us 'muggles'

21:48 / 03.05.05

I prefer the term "people".

We're all doing magick right now, extruding imagination into history, dreaming the future and making it real. If Christians pray for peace and harmony, liberty and justice, then their magic(k) is just as real and valuable as mine. Same goes for scientists and politicians. It's not the method or the means, it's the motivation and the goal.

Labels divide. I feel that people are far more similar than we're inclined/allowed to believe.

Imaginary Mongoose Solutions

01:34 / 04.05.05

I have to jump on the "people" bandwagon as well. I certianly don't think I'm a qualified judge of who is "really doing magic(k)" and who isn't (and I've been in this game for longer than I care tot hink about). And why should it matter?

08:43 / 04.05.05

Hatters and non-hatters makes me really happy.

Bwhahahahaha, when I typed that I typed it as Haters and non-hatters.

Nietzsch E. Coyote

10:09 / 04.05.05

I have referred to them as "people who aren't into this shit" and when in a raw mood, mehums.

19:40 / 04.05.05

I like the hat indicator, except my son always considers the action figures with hats as "the gangsters". I hope that I don't confuse him.

22:30 / 04.05.05

I find it hard to separate "supernatural" and "non-supernatural" entities, especially since I see so much validity in everyone's personal mythologies. To piss on others' parades because you think it's uncool is not necessarily the realm of gods. Well, maybe except Greek Gods. But then again, Ancient Greece never saw David Beckham naked.

And neither did I. And that's a shame, really.

Um. Call me an "agnostic". All I know is that I don't know nothin'.

06:47 / 05.05.05

If we are using the term non-hatters and the person in question suddenly wears a hat, what does that mean? Would it be confusing? Also, would baseball caps count?

23:17 / 17.05.05

Seth said:"I've been thinking it'd be good to find a new word for all practitioners of magic who aren't shamans.

"I reckon we also desperately need a word for describing all people don't drive cars and who aren't into sport, perhaps with a word for the overlap between those two sets."

If for some reason you and others in the subculture you're in talked frequently about people who aren't into sport, you'd probably coin a term for it. I don't see how it's any more divisive to call them "non-sporties" than "people who aren't into sport". I also think that since there are apparently already numerous terms for non-magick people out there, it probably is useful to have a term for it.

I think it's rather funny that some of you have said that you don't want to call non-magick people "normal" because it seems to imply that you're better than non-magick people, just because the first word I could think of that's used to decribe "people who aren't described by a certain word" is the word neurotypical to mean people who don't have autistic spectrum disorders. A lot of people prefer the word neurotypical rather than "normal" (which is also commonly used to refer to non-autistics) because they believe that calling non-autistic people normal implies that autistics are not as good as neurotypicals.

00:03 / 18.05.05

The problem is that you end up with tons of words defined in the negative. It's substantially easier to define a positive something and just stick a non- in front of it if you need to describe the negative.

If you're coming up with words for groups of people it's also worth bearing in mind the potential reactions to that definition from within the set it defines. Added to that remember that you're creating words for those who are and aren't into magic, thereby perpetuating many of the unhelpfully dualistic tendencies of language.

I have a lot of time for being utilitarian, though. That's why I go for the functional but clunkily inelegant non.

Page: (1)2