Historically this interpretation is not correct. Occult qualities are qualities, which cannot be known by senses.
See:
Hutchison, Keith. "What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution?" Isis 73 (1982): 233-53
Meinel, Christoph. "Okkulte und exakte Wissenschaften" in Die Okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance. Wiesbaden, 1992, 22-43
Blum, Paul Richard. " Qualitates occultae: Zur Philosophischen Vorgeschichte eines Schluesselbegriffs zwischen Okkultismus und Wissenschaft" in Die Okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance. Wiesbaden, 1992, 45-64
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 2:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] British writers who are occultists
Take a step back and consider why occultism is occult. Is it that it is hidden in that few know of or about it, or, rather, does it refer to the layers of meaning found in 'occult' systems. By the former measure astrology is not occult, but by the second it is.
Regards,
Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of Social Science
University of Tasmania
On 25/07/2014 12:22 AM, Nick Campion wrote:
> The issue becomes acute when we consider astrology which is frequently
> defined as 'occult' in dictionaries and encyclopaedias, while many
> practitioners reject the term. I suspect that in common usage the term
> 'occultist' is often implicitly considered the same as 'ritual
> magician',
>
> Nick
> ________________________________________
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jon Sharp (LTS)
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 24 July 2014 12:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] British writers who are occultists
>
> The question of what constitutes 'occultism' is surely as problematic as the question of what constitutes 'magic' and so I would also agree with Nick's point.
> For me, what matters is clarity around what is intended when the term is being used: a definition of 'occultist' as one who actively engages in the pursuit of hidden truths may be just as reasonable as a broader definition that includes the study of such matters without an associated commitment or praxis. As long as the definition that is being proposed is made clear then there would seem to be a number of ways in which the term 'occultist' might be correctly employed.
> Bw
> Jon
>
> Dr Jon Sharp, Head of Learning and Teaching Services University of
> East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ
> Office: Room 0.27, The Registry Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: 01603 597374, or contact Claire Grasby [log in to unmask] on (59)
> 3563
> Mobile: 07795666465
>
> This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Caroline Tully
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:47 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] British writers who are
>> occultists
>>
>> It may not be a case of being initiated into occult societies, or
>> studying occult subjects, but of _practising_ occult arts. At least
>> with ceremonial
>> magic(k) for example, one is expected to study and practise it. But
>> maybe that's not the case for being an "occultist", maybe that's a
>> broader,
>> vaguer(?) category.
>>
>> Caroline Tully.
>>
>> Centre for Classics and Archaeology
>> University of Melbourne
>> Australia
>> http://classics-archaeology.unimelb.edu.au/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2014 8:27 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC]
>> British writers who are occultists
>>
>> Absolutely. Unless someone was on the membership roll of some society
>> or other a determination as to whether or not one is an occultist is
>> very problematic. Not the least because of the question of how one
>> defines 'an occultist'. In Wheatley's case for example, he wrote many
>> books with occult themes, for which he would have had to do research
>> on occult matters. This raises the question of whether those who
>> study the occult are by default occultists, or if there is some
>> necessary commitment to be made before one is considered a 'real'
>> occultist? Must one be initiated into some tradition before one may claim the moniker or are self initiates also occultists?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Morgan Leigh
>> PhD Candidate
>> School of Social Sciences
>> University of Tasmania
>>
>> On 23/07/2014 2:46 PM, Nick Campion wrote:
>>> I'd like to suggest that to be an occultist or not to be an
>>> occultist are
>> not binary poles, and that there are multiple ways in which one might
>> be considered an occultist.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>>> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ted Hand
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: 18 July 2014 04:50
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC]
>> British
>>> writers who are occultists
>>>
>>> I guess my point is that Lovecraft although clearly not a believer
>> certainly appreciated how the occult functions, if you like. There
>> was a reality to it that while not numinous was powerful in other
>> senses. Which puts him in a tradition of readers making their own use
>> of occult sources. I don't think he must be an occultist or initiate
>> to be understood as an occult writer in some sense. That said I don't think he had chaos magic in mind...
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2014 8:25 PM, "M. S. Spencer"
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> That should be addressed to Leigh, not Lee. apologies.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM, M. S. Spencer
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> Lee,
>>>
>>> Grant does not suggest that Lovecraft was an active Occultist in the
>>> sense
>> of one who is consciously practing "occult science" or performing
>> ritual, nor does he suggest that Lovecraft "believed" in the occult.
>> To suggest otherwise implies one has not read Grant, or is otherwise
>> motivated to misrepresent his work. Grant was very aware of
>> Lovecraft's materialism and atheism. He even directly addresses it several times in the Trilogies.
>>>
>>> ~M
>>>
>>>
>>> As long ago as 1987 I published "H.P. Lovecraft as Occultist': An
>> Exploration" (essay in four parts, Shadowplay, Australia; in two
>> parts, Dagon,
>> UK) which refutes any suggestion (as made by Kenneth Grant and
>> others) that Lovecraft believed in occultism or practised it any way
>> save that of employing occult motifs in his fictional work.
>>>
|