To look at a few key points:
Izanagi009 said:
Hindi, Shinto, Russian Orthodox, Catholic, Norse. These are all clear classifications in magic but they are still based on interpretation and meanings.
Christianity doesn't consider its kind of divine intervention to be "magic", but an extension of the divine creation. And certainly it's a religion that makes an argument that the natural resources of our planet are sufficient to see to human needs, as the planet is inherently divine. I'm not a Christian, mind, but I was raised as one, and it's a religion (or set of religions) that perceives magic differently to most others.
Most religions will see magic differently, but none will really "classify" them. To each of those religions, magic is a singular concept. After all, most of those religions were created in exclusion from the others, and each carries the cultural perceptions of magic from their time and place. They were never meant to reconcile with one-another and, until recently, they haven't needed to.
Izanagi009 said:
Anything can be classified, even magic. the only thing that changes in the classification parameter
And that's the thing. You (and many others) are trying very hard to apply the scientific method to magic. You can apply the scientific method to beliefs concerning magic, but magic itself is too deeply rooted in subjective meanings for it to ever actually be measurable -- even in a fantasy context. When a fantasy setting takes objective observation and applies it to magic, that magic ceases to be magic and becomes a form of science that applies to the altered rules of the setting.
Your example of destroying the effigy of a fertility deity is flawed, for instance, because it requires there to be a fertility deity to rebel against. But a rose, in Western culture, is an incredibly potent symbol of fertility in and of itself. The symbol has broader application and doesn't require additional rules or parameters to be in place -- just that people consider this object to symbolise fertility. And there's nothing inherent in the meaning of an effigy that implies destroying it would have a broad effect. So your example requires a specific conceptualisation of magic and a specific belief concerning the makings of effigies... but a rose has long been a universal symbol in Western culture and has become a universal symbol around the world. That's the difference, and why I used that example in the first place. It's easy to understand and to identify the meaning of.
Do you see where I'm going with this? That's a sincere question, because I may have become unclear when talking about this. It can be difficult subject to discuss clearly. But look at it this way: in order to support your views of magic (which is essentially "magic can be formalised"), you imposed additional rules upon the example. That ought to speak for itself. That is, you formalised the example to support your position that magic can be formalised. That's the application of a contemporary point of view in order to reconcile contemporary thought with a very non-contemporary concept.
Also, I hope I'm not being insulting or condescending towards anyone with my posts. That's not my intent -- I just want to explain a point of view that has less to do with gamer psyche and more to do with broader human behaviour. I realise that I get somewhat wordy in the process, though.
