Aloha,

On 11/6/2007 at 12:15 PM Sabina Magliocco wrote:

>The best scenario is the one Pitch describes, in which techniques or
material,
>devoid of ideological content, are included under the wire as part of a
>curriculum not exclusively devoted to esoterism.

Let me add a few comments.

Try as I might, I have never been able to teach magico-spiritual techniques

in the way that I myself learned them--without reference to ideologies
or historical cultural/traditional contexts.

I think that one reason has to do with age. As a young teenager presented
with a constellation of techniques in a school class ostensibly aimed at
a different and non-esoteric target, I had every reason not to suspect
what I was actually being taught. Let alone question it. But as a young
teenager, I had some reason to learn and do.

Adults, by contrast, like to question what they're learning. And prefer
to have all sorts of ideological and cultural contexts. And often have no
reason to learn or do.

I think that another reason has to do with the virtual explosion of
occulture,
resources, information, access, and chat about stuff. Everything, or almost

everything, has too much ideology, too much context, too much tell me all
about it. As close as TV, DVD, or the internet.

Having said that, I think that some sorts of stealthy teaching of applied
magico-spirituality is possible in schools and universities. But probably
with
some ideological context, something to account for offering the
instruction.

>The fact is that esoteric subjects are already being taught in public
>universities; students must search them out, but that's not necessarily a
>bad thing.

One thing that I did get good at during my time at a great Mid-Western
megaversity was ferreting out stuff I wanted to learn and who could teach
it to me. Mostly on my own and often outside of formal classes.

>I also want to put in a good word for science, since we sometimes see the
>scientific paradigm as the cause of many of the problems esoterism has
>being accepted as a field of study in the academy.

So far as I can tell, there's plenty of studying of occultural and esoteric

stuff in the academy. But there's no organized field supported by
departments of esotericism.

I think that this is mostly a matter of academic politics and world view.
That world view does invoke *science* to exclude a variety of possible
academic departments, but it's not quite the same as getting all
scientific on stuff. It's more a means of defending legitimacy. And
it looks like money won't buy doable esotericism legitimacy.

Musing Magic Sans Ideology! Rose,

Pitch