It could be said that all things of this world or even peripheral to it are ruled by structured systems and those that seem not to be are merely misunderstood. Given time and intention we can unveil the truth of all matters. Those who cleave to this understanding are said to "practice science."

It's not so much that I disagree with the concept as a formal truth design, but like all truths, I find it incomplete, and this one rather thin. Whereas the truths one finds within temples is thick, solid, heavy and generally immobile, this regards perception as its primary muse. Do I need to remind you, reader, of the frailty of sentient awareness?

Where religious dogma has mired nations in constant conflict and oppressed its faithful for want of security in spirit, this "science" (and don't get me wrong because I am drawing distinctions, science is a religion as well) tends to be more versatile and flexible, creating salvation through constant questioning and examination of possibilities. Instead of announcing the truth, science announces the search for truth. Nevertheless, the "high priests" of science, as do all peoples, tend to get caught in their experiences and expectations. Often I have seen these logical types try to hammer a square peg into a round hole; they need their truth to have value. Their usual degree of success to my mind suggests something intrinsic to the nature of reality, though as such, the same marvelous assumptions could easily be applied to theologians.

In their defense, however, I must admit that their methods have produced amazing advances in thought and mechanical, as well as magical, techniques or technology. Despite the ongoing dispute between the logical and theological what both have produced from the foundations of their belief systems is remarkable. My prejudices, however, are fueled by their treatment of each other: the religious set regarding the other as anathema whereas the empirical set think the religious as merely misguided; the first being exclusive, the latter being inclusive. Generally, I prefer more rather than less. I am more likely to be in the company of magicians and sages (even though I am often regarded as a superstitious simpleton).

The most popular scientific application is toward magical systems. Though magicians who understand the world and its basic natures are better prepared to cast their spells, manipulation of the world through magic is taken as predominantly more valuable to know than what existed originally. Instruction in this regard depends upon the school you attend. We have here a textbook from ???, one of the finest schools nestled in Nyrond, that sets the basics of magical science. All other texts assume a level of understanding equal to completion of the ??? text.

Along with the mechanics of magic we have various other sagely works detailing processes and methodologies for skills as well as deep examination of the natural world: physics and motion, plant and animal qualities, weather phenomena and heavenly bodies, and metallurgy and mineral study. Also in my library are theoretical analyses: mathematics, geometry, logic, endo/ecto-realities and possibility matrices, temporal studies and polyflux chronologies, and phenomenological fugues and manipulations.

Enjoy!