Discussion Is it acceptable to separate paranormal and supernatural as different systems?

Supernatural is the higher spectrum of the paranormal, but supernatural is explainable and paranormal by default is not. Hence, paranormal should either be the lower spectrum of supernatural or a separate system different from the supernatural system?

What say you?

The idea is to separate them for supernatural system can be described with origin and end, but paranormal system only can be described with end. Origin is the system's framework and end is the system's functions.

Why am I starting such a discussion? It's for another story idea, just a dead idea.

 

IMO, supernatural isn't explainable either. If anything, it's paranormal which may be one day shed light on by science.

 

Paranormal sounds like parallel to normal, as in something that is similar or equivalent to normal. So if we were to have multiple dimensions, perhaps in one of those worlds having talking plants or ghosts are normal. Supernatural uses super, which means it should be far above or far superior to natural. I generally view supernatural as higher order fantasy (or superheroes) whereas paranormal is more lower order/based on reality (like ghost busters)

 

What even is higher and lower spectrum.. you mean subset or superset?

 

I like this explanation

Source

 

So which is your poll option?

This is what I technically stated, but I like the idea to separate them in difference between their nature and intent.
The "nature" of the supernatural can be explained by myths or legends, thus, they possess origins and ends. "Intent" being ends to which the supernatural have effect over reality as we know it. The paranormal do no possess origins, only ends, but science may not necessarily unravel they mysteries behind the paranormal. The paranormal can be furthered divided into true or false, the former's phenomena is not possible with science, and latter is in the progression of learning about the world. It's a matter of mysteries being known or unknown.

Yeah, something like that.

 

I definitely say sub category. Paranormal is its own thing, usually a totally different genre, but supernatural is EVERYTHING outside the laws of nature/physics. Ghosts are included in that definition.

So basically the same treatment of magic or w.e. it's all supernatural, but it clarifies specific aspects by having the magic/paranormal/psychic/superhero subcategory

 

Paranormal (activities) are for people who like to watch others set up cameras with night-vision, ectoplasm-reading devices, ghost-finding vibrators and whatnot and freak out like the ultimate mix of boyband-fangirls and "Oh my god a tornado is coming, run for safety" natural disaster survivers.

Supernatural is for people who enjoy the Bromance of two guys getting their asses kicked by and killing all kinds of monsters, ghosts, demons, angels, gods, etc, while indirectly confessing their undying love for each other every other episode.

I normally don't like BL, but in this case my decision is clear.

 

I read the articles now, part 1 and 2. Very nice info. Thanks for sharing source. In conclusion, they are logically the same, but their technicalities are not, as supernaturals are free from logical explanations as opposed to paranormal which can be explained by either supernatural origins or scientific explanations. Then again, the mysteries between supernatural and paranormal are blurred in the face of the unknown, but recognition states otherwise, that supernatural is clearly more founded as something to be accepted as "fantasy" while paranormal is closer to "reality".

As I stated, supernatural is a higher spectrum of paranormal, but I started this discussion in hopes of separating the both. Yes, their intents are the same, but their origins are not. Do you conclude that paranormal can be a separate system to supernatural or is it branch of supernatural mixed with the scientific system?

 

So what is your decision? Can systems (p) and (s) be separated or not?

Ah, yes, the Winchesters. Minus the melodrama and plot holes, it was an interesting show to watch if you're a fan of Biblical stories. Unfortunately it's a dying show like many previous gems or maybe it's already a dead series.

 

But if a novel states that magic et al is a part of nature is it still considered as supernatural/paranormal?

 

Fire is naturally possible to the elements in the air and the force applied between the elements in the earth. This fire's origin and intent is scientific. But, what if the fire was manifested through water and the force applied between the elements were not from any elements known? Is the fire's origin and intent purely scientific? This is where supernatural and paranormal make their stance in the phenomenon. Supernatural fire is not explainable by science, but it's mystery is lesser compared to paranormal, because supernatural fire can be explained in non-scientific origins such through myths and legends. Paranormal is a far obscure mystery, because though it's intent is supernaturally possible as scientifically possible, it's origin is unknown and could only be referenced as similar to supernatural.

If the supernatural are the genuine article, then the paranormal are imitations or misinterpreted articles vaguely related to the supernatural or scientific.

 

I suppose yes in that case, as the author already gave it a definition in his novel on which the plot will be set

 

I think in the eyes of the general population, they already are:
Anything with ghosts haunting an otherwise normal area is called paranormal, while supernatural is anything from the Winchesters over Happy Rotter to the myths of old.

And, yeah, I stoped watching quite some time ago. I might rewatch a few of the early seasons, but I find those "Ghost Hunters" or what those shows are called rather boring.

 

Like I said I consider it a subset. Which means it's a part of that category. Just as magic and super heroes are. So I consider it a unique part of supernatural, but part of supernatural nonetheless.

Although, if everything is "explained". Like it's set in the future and they discovered scientific evidence of it, then it's suddenly sci-fi. So looking based on that I could put it as a shared branch of sci-fi and supernatural, switching between the two based on whether or not a detailed explanation of the issues vs our reality are given. However I've yet to see an author go through the trouble of fully defining an extra set of rules that fit into the laws of physics.... Since people who are capable of that aren't usually authors and it likely wouldn't be fun to read... Like at all... Talking a 80 page scientific study as the into to your "story".

So I'd say it's safe to put fictional paranormal formally under the supernatural genre, since I doubt the sci-fi branch will see use. I.e. ghost busters had a LOT of jargon to make it "real"but there was still a ton that made 0 sense and thus it's still supernatural beings. The sci-fi element was the stuff they used to detect and store them, but the ghosts remained supernatural.

 

Good thing there are plenty of "the differences between these 2 similar words are"-type pages on-line.

 

I don't think most people know how to recognize the difference between both, (I certainly can't) so it only makes sense to keep them together IMO.

 

Let me iterate the question with your example if the author says that fire was manifested through water and the force applied between the elements were explained with whatever way they want and say it's science, is it still considered supernatural/paranormal?

 

Pseudo-science, so paranormal.

 

Supernatural has origin and end
Paranormal has unknown origin and end.
That's how I'd describe it.

So I wouldn't really seperate it.