>>96047940
OK one last try just for you alright.
Magic is subjectively perceptible, however subjectivity is mutable by its nature.
If something is subjective it can be interpreted. It's the opposite of objective, which is to be self-evident.
If something is open to interpretation and as vague a concept as magic is it can be defined as strictly and objectively as one wants it to be defined.
To these people magic now is no longer subjective, it is an objective thing that they have defined a certain way.
Things that exist outside of their paradigm of understanding of magic are no longer magic, they are something else.
This is the basis of the distinction between godlike miracles and heretical magic in the Christian sphere of influence.
Both are supernatural one is magic the other is not.
Given all this we can determine that magic is not universally subjective at all times.
These "systems" of magic are defined exclusively as magic to these people therefore they are magic. To argue against this is to argue against words having specific meanings.
This is the milieu that RPGs and fiction in general operate under.
To the fiction writer magic is whatever they decide to define it as. Just as it was in the past defined by real people with different definitions.
These definitions are valid understandings of the concept of magic, given that to our knowledge it doesn't exist, thus these objective definitions are magic in any meaningful sense of the word.
If someone perceives magic as being an objective concept it is objective. The nature of subjectivity is that it bows to objectivity.
Because you cannot say that a person's perception of a thing that doesn't exist is incorrect magic as an objective is simply just as valid as magic as a subjective.
Multiple different objective interpretations also don't automatically make them wrong or inherently subjective.
If I say "Grass is green" that's an objective statement. If I say "Grass is yellow" that's also an objective statement.
