Magic and Functional Ontology

I’m working my way through The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. The subtitle of the book is “Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate”. The book lays out a series of 17 propositions. I’m less than halfway through so I don’t know what the final punchline is yet. Proposition 2 however is quite interesting: “Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented”. Prof. Walton opens the chapter by asking the question “What does it mean for something to exist?”

The discussion surrounds the question of ontology. The author defines this as: “The ontology of X is what it means for X to exist.” He then asks the question: “What is the principle quality of existence?” Two examples are used to contrast two types of ontology. The first example is a chair. Most of us would think of the chair’s existence in terms of its material or physical properties. This is labeled a material ontology. The second example is a company/corporation. The author argues that the ontology that we commonly associate with such an entity is a functional ontology, i.e., the company or corporation exists when it conducts its business, whatever that may be.

The author then discusses what it means to create given different associated ontologies. Creating a chair has to do with bringing its material properties into existence, while creating a company is associated with bringing its functional properties into existence. Some further examples used include creating a committee, creating a curriculum, creating havoc, and creating a masterpiece. As someone who has experienced in-depth involvement with creating a curriculum, I recall many discussions about the function of the curriculum, and less having to do with the physical material of the curriculum. (We did discuss physical books though, but more in terms of their intellectual or pedagogical content rather than the quality of the printed paper or binding.) Prof. Walton’s argument is that the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible should be read with functional ontology, rather than material ontology, in mind because this is what you see comparatively across literature of the time dealing with ancient cosmology. While this in itself is an interesting topic that I might pick up in a later blog, my thoughts today have to do with the world of Harry Potter and the nature of magic.

In my earlier blog posts on magic, my analysis automatically assumed a material ontology. Maybe that’s the mindset of someone trained and immersed in the natural sciences. I considered how magic interferes with electricity or electromagnetic radiation. I discussed my thoughts about magic’s mode of operation in the realm of how energy can be manipulated in the electromagnetic (“light”) regime and how this interacts with the material (“matter”) regime proper. In thinking about boggarts or dementors, I again automatically analyzed these magical creatures in how they relate to physical matter – i.e., employing a material ontology. In thinking about how magical ability is acquired or inherited, I thought about symbionts such as the midichlorians that mediate the Force in the Star Wars series.

But maybe the material ontology approach is less satisfactory than a functional ontology approach. What if I thought about magic primarily in terms of its function? There seem to be two important characteristics in casting a spell: the use of a wand and the incantation. Of the two, the wand seems to be mainly used as a channel, while the incantation is what differentiates one spell from another. Yes, sometimes the wand movements matter to direct the spell, but it’s the incantation that’s key. In the first five Harry Potter books, spell incantations are verbally audible for the most part. Speaking the incantation brings the spell’s function into existence. Interestingly, there is an analogy here with Genesis in the Bible where creation is spoken into being.

In Book 6 (which I just finished re-reading, and it was superb!), the sixth year students are introduced to non-verbal spells. So the actual verbal incantation is not fundamental, but the key seems to be the thought of the incantation or the focus of the mind on the incantation. By focusing the mind or the will (and it is unclear how you would separate the two), the function of the spell is brought into being. The material properties simply follow along where necessary to complete the function. Is this what happens when we speak or think? The function or meaning is more important (to us) then the physical things that happen allowing speech or thought be they waves, vibrations of vocal chords, or chemo-electrical neural transmission.

Can material rules be “broken”, or perhaps act subserviently, to the functional aspect of speech or thought if indeed the speaker or thinker was “powerful” enough, whatever that looks like? In a sense the Matrix world in the series of Matrix movies operates in this way. There are physical rules and interactions (upheld by computer programming) but they can be bent or broken through force of thought interacting with the bits and bytes in the Matrix. Is our world like this? Are there “gods” or beings that functionally operate in a way that can supercede our “physical laws”. Now, that’s an interesting question to ponder.