Chris,
Could you elaborate more on what kind of progress is made in the
methodological theory in history? As I am relatively new to the field, I
would like to get to know some different perspectives on the study of
western esotericism.
Could you recommend some books or articles that cover the method you are
refering to?
Guido
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:58 -0500, Christopher I. Lehrich
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Francisco,
>
>Can you clarify what you mean by "non-religionist" method?
>
>I have not yet gotten my hands on this Faivre and Hanegraaff volume, but
>I did not find the methodological discussions in Hanegraaff's book on
>the New Age to be valuable. The book is a useful survey, of course, but
>he pushes for a kind of neo-empiricism that it seems to me ignores most
>of the progress made in methodological theory in anthropology, history,
>and religious studies since the late 1960s. Hanegraaff seems caught up
>in the idea that somehow distinguishing between emic and etic
>perspectives will solve everything, which strikes me as weirdly naive.
>
>Chris Lehrich
>
>Francisco Silva wrote:
>
>> Thanks very much.
>>
>> So, it does have some stuff on method in the study of Esoterism, any
>> other good books on "non-religionist" method in the study of
>> Esoterism/Occult? Because I can't find anything other than this.
>>
>> Francisco
|