Welcome to Gaia! ::

Both.

Some don't accept that reality itself has an objective base, and all our universe is functionally the product of our own mind. Therefore magic can be pretty much just hacking our own Matrix.

A few with more crypto-scientific beliefs think that the universe operates under objectives laws of energy, which we understand, and more subtle laws of energy, which we currently do not, and therefore call magic. I would say the reaction of quantum states to observation is the easiest way to point to a good example of "Oh hey, that's interesting, the mind may have reactions we can't yet explain."

My own personal belief, or rather the belief system I am currently most captivated with would be Zen/Buddhism, wherein "subjectivity and objectivity become one." I confess I do not currently understand the metaphor/statement but find it resonates with truth, and I endeavor to discover it further.

Oh I love philosophy.

I believe that magic is objective, but has tendencies towards subjectiveness. The power of chicken soup is awesome.

Wow...that's almost word for word exactly how I see it. But I came to that view observing how dreams and dreamwalkers work and take effect on one another. How did you come to it?

Anyway, it's also the reason why I have such a hard time defining magic and it's objective/subjective nature. At root it's little more than will imposed over energy, but it's the environment that it comes from and interacts with that makes the whole thing so utterly complicated. Something made more so when I believe our shared reality to be little more than a subjective field created by the god(s) responsible. Much like how we create our own realities, especially in dreams.

Still...the real question is whether it is necessary to assert our reality over another's for our magic to take effect on them. I really don't think so, but that's because I think magic does not depend on just our individual subjective realities but on the overall reality that we share. Then again, I also think that it is the purpose worked into the magic itself that ultimately determines how it works and thus whether tends more toward objectivity or subjectivity.

One thing in particular that I've noticed that supports this is that spells that are objective in nature are more on the passive side. They will work on others and do their job regardless of belief system and will simply present themselves in individual subjective realities in the most acceptable form that most closely resembles its purpose. Subjective spells on the other hand are more of an active nature. They must impose themselves into other realities and alter them to fit the conditions that they require to work. But these kind of spells usually require a lot of power to work or the caster absolutely requires that the results be tangible and real to those affected. So it makes sense they would be made to work this way.

Then again, maybe others would see this differently and draw other conclusions.

I never understood magic as hostile, or that it may take over any concept of free will. That's bad juju, and I stay away from it. Objectively, I can make a bowl of chicken soup for a friend (as a kitchen witch) who is sick. My intention is to make them (A) Feel better in spirits, (B) make them eat food so they can physically get better. I am not working as a group but it is my will that the chicken soup be a healing process for him/her.

I almost do not believe in subjectivity in magic. Though a small portion of me also knows that there has been studies of people with terminal illness who have been prayed for by families and their friends. I understand that by praying for a very ill person you hold an image of them happy and healthy in your mind. With a large group of people, the ability to press that will on a sick person has the ability to make them feel better, or become physically better.

I believe in objective magic, though I cannot doubt subjective magic also holds some credit in my mind.

I'm do not really have much thought regarding the topic, since I still have uncertainties regarding existence and other, more 'tangible', things.

However, the mention of free-will and such reminded me of a conversation I had, and I apologize if I've shared this before. It went along the lines of talking about magic and the relatively odd occurrences that seem to take place in that whole world of discussion. The person I was talking to went on to talk about "true", I think they said "real", magic, and how it's kind of 'bad' as what it does is take away the chance for other people to make a choice, a decision that they normally would have been able to make, or maybe should have been able to make. The moral or message was that people sometimes (often) were "robbed" of their free will as a result of such magic.

I think absolutes usually beg to be proven incorrect, but the impression was that said magic, or power, was something that would appear along the lines of a dead end to people seeking it, since it seemed to be one of those things that removed itself from the world, and anyone who would not go along with that would be unlikely to find such in the first place. An old story I suppose.